task.result

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'Get task result.' It fails to indicate whether this is a blocking call (waits for completion), what happens if the task is still running or failed, whether results are persisted, or what data format is returned. This is insufficient transparency for a tool without annotation support.

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?

The description is extremely short at 3 words, which could be considered concise, but it sacrifices necessary detail. A single sentence is acceptable, but it doesn't earn its length by providing useful information beyond the tool name. It matches the name closely, offering little added value.

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?

Given the tool has 1 parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'result' means, when it's available, or how to interpret the response. For a tool that likely returns variable data depending on the original task, this is a significant gap that could lead to agent confusion or errors.

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%, meaning the description carries full burden to explain parameters. However, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema's property name 'task_id'. It doesn't specify what a valid task_id looks like (e.g., UUID, integer), where to obtain it, or constraints like length or format.

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 'Get task result' states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('task result'), matching the tool name 'task.result'. It distinguishes from other task-related tools like 'task.status' and 'task.cancel', but doesn't specify the type of result or when it's available, leaving ambiguity about what 'result' means.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like task.status or task.cancel. There is no context about prerequisites (e.g., task must be completed), no explicit when/when-not statements, and no mention of task lifecycle status that might affect usage.

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