get_result

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that pages are bounded and that pagination terminates when next_cursor is null, but it says nothing about error behavior for an unknown task_id, ordering of results, or whether repeated reads are stable. It also names a field, next_cursor, that does not exist in the input schema (the parameter is cursor), which creates confusion about the response shape in the absence of an output schema.

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?

One short clause pair, front-loaded with the action and followed by the loop condition; there is no filler. It is terse rather than padded, though the terseness leaves gaps elsewhere.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, a single sentence is not enough. The agent is not told what a 'result' contains, how to interpret limit/cursor, or when this tool is the right read versus its many siblings.

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 document task_id, limit, and cursor, and it documents none of them. It never explains that limit controls page size (default 60000) or that cursor is an offset (default 0), and the only hint at pagination uses a different name than the actual parameter.

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?

It states a read of a paginated 'result page', which is a verb+resource, but 'result' is never tied to a task or agent, so it is unclear how this differs from get_transcript, get_events, or get_event_page in the sibling set. An agent must guess which of the several read tools returns task results.

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 only guidance is the pagination loop ('follow next_cursor until it is null'), which is a how, not a when. Nothing says when to prefer get_result over get_transcript, get_events, check_task, or get_event_page, and no prerequisites (e.g., a completed task, a valid task_id) are given.

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