task_result

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals one important edge case ('If task_id is omitted, returns the last result') and the read-oriented verb 'Get' implies a non-mutating operation. It does not cover error cases, what happens when no task exists, or how 'last result' is scoped (e.g., per agent).

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 two sentences with zero filler. The main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence for immediate understanding, and the second sentence adds a concise edge-case behavior. Every word earns its place.

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 there is no output schema, no annotations, and minimal parameter documentation, the description covers the returned content ('result ... enriched with task_id and status') and one edge case, but it leaves the required agent_id semantics unstated and provides no error or empty-result behavior. For a simple getter this is adequate but not fully 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for both properties. It partially explains task_id by stating the omission behavior, but the required agent_id parameter is completely undocumented in text, leaving its purpose and relationship to task_id ambiguous. This is a significant gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get the result of a task', and adds distinctive detail through 'enriched with task_id and status' and the fallback-to-last-result behavior. It implicitly differentiates from sibling task_status by focusing on the result rather than status alone, though it never explicitly names an alternative.

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 provides a clear conditional usage note for the task_id parameter ('If omitted, returns the last result'), which is useful context. However, it does not offer any guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like task_status or aggregate_results, nor any exclusions for when not to use it.

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