get_job_result

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states 'retrieve' implying read-only, but fails to disclose failure modes (e.g., job not completed, invalid id), idempotency, or rate limits.

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: purpose and parameter explanation. No filler, front-loaded with the verb. Every sentence is necessary and efficient.

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?

Missing crucial context: no output schema or description of return format, and no mention of preconditions (job must be complete). Despite having only one parameter, the tool's behavior is underspecified for an agent.

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 has 0% coverage, but description explains job_id is returned by start_job, adding crucial context beyond the schema's type and title. This compensates for the empty schema description.

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 full structured results of a completed background job, specifying the action and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like check_job_status or list_jobs, though the context implies it's for after completion.

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?

Minimal guidance: it mentions the job must be completed and the job_id comes from start_job, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use compared to alternatives like check_job_status.

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