delegate_result

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds the non-obvious caveat that a finished job may still have background processes running and directs the agent to delegate_status for those, while the 'collect' wording implies a read-only retrieval. It does not explicitly state that no files are deleted or that the call is non-mutating, but it is considerably transparent.

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 core result and file-listing behavior, then a short caveat and sibling pointer. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant wording.

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?

Despite no output schema, it tells the agent what will be returned: a final report plus a listing of scratch files. It also covers the key ambiguity about background processes. It does not describe error behavior for unknown job_ids or output formatting, but for a focused result-collection tool the essentials are present.

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 covers include_files but not job_id. The description's mention of 'delegated job' indirectly clarifies job_id as the identifier of a previously delegated job, but it does not explain include_files beyond the schema's own text. At 50% coverage, it partially compensates but relies on the schema for half the parameter meaning.

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?

Clearly states a specific, non-trivial action: 'Collect the final report from a delegated job' plus a second concrete deliverable, 'a listing of every file it wrote to its scratch directory.' This distinguishes it from siblings like delegate_start, delegate_status, and delegate_cancel, which handle creation, status, and cancelling.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to delegate_status when it needs background-process info, giving an alternative for a specific situation. It implies the main use case is after a delegated job has finished, though it does not explicitly say 'call only when delegate_status reports done.'

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