get_job_result

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

The description discloses all behavioral traits for different job states (success, queued/running, failed) without relying on any annotations. It fully informs the agent of what to expect, compensating for the lack of annotations.

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 concise with four sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Each sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present), the description covers all necessary contexts: when to use, what returns for each job status. The output schema handles return value details, so no further elaboration needed.

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?

Input schema has one parameter (job_id) with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not mention or explain the job_id parameter at all, failing to add meaning beyond the schema's type and title. The tool description should have explained what job_id refers to and how to obtain it.

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 retrieves the final output of a completed job using the verb 'Retrieve' and specific resource 'final output of a completed job'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tool get_job_status by focusing on result retrieval rather than status checking.

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 states when to use the tool: 'only be called after the job status is success'. Also describes what happens for other statuses (queued/running returns status, failed returns error details), providing clear guidance on expected behavior in each scenario.

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