fetch_result

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the failure behavior (fails if job not done) and the return content (preview + saved path). However, it doesn't disclose whether the save parameter affects the saved path, whether the operation is read-only, or any side effects like writing files to disk.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and the failure condition is stated concisely. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple 2-param tool with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and failure mode. However, the save parameter's effect is unexplained, and there's no mention of the return format or how the saved path is provided. Given the sibling tools, an agent might benefit from knowing this is the retrieval step after wait_for_job.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains job_id implicitly (identifies the job) and save is mentioned only as 'saved path' in the return, but the description doesn't clarify what the save boolean does. The description adds some meaning but leaves the key parameter save ambiguous.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool returns images of a finished job, including preview and saved path, and explicitly notes it fails if the job is not done. This distinguishes it from siblings like job_status (which likely just reports status) and wait_for_job (which waits), though it doesn't name them explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use it: after a job is finished, and warns it fails if not done. This implicitly guides the agent to use wait_for_job or job_status first. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it beyond the failure condition.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.