get_subagent_result

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does reveal an important constraint (only terminated runs produce a result), but it does not mention what happens for running runs, error behavior (e.g., run not found), or whether this is a read-only operation. It gives partial transparency.

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 a single, tightly worded sentence. It front-loads the action ('Return the final structured completion payload') and immediately follows with the condition for use. 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?

This is a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema. The description covers the core behavior (returns final payload), the applicable statuses, and the structured nature of the output. It does not detail return values, but given the simplicity and sibling context, the description is sufficiently complete.

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not elaborate on the run_id parameter. It only appears in the schema with a type and required flag. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds no additional meaning (e.g., format, how to obtain it), and the low coverage requires compensation that is absent.

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's function with a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('final structured completion payload for a terminated run'). It also specifies the exact statuses that qualify, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_subagent_status and get_subagent_events.

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 the tool: after a run has terminated (status in the listed set). It provides clear context for the expected state of the run, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or explicitly state 'use this instead of get_subagent_status'.

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