get_result

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states that outputs are fetched without explaining what happens if the prompt ID is invalid, whether the operation blocks until outputs are ready, or whether partial outputs are possible. The minimal detail leaves key behavioral traits unspecified.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool, though it omits usage details that would not significantly lengthen it. The structure is clean and readable.

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?

Despite an output schema existing, the description does not cover when to use the tool, prerequisite conditions, or error behavior. The single sentence is under-specified for a tool that likely depends on a prior submission, and it does not reference sibling tools or lifecycle context, leaving notable gaps.

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?

The schema has zero description coverage for prompt_id, so the description must compensate. It implies that prompt_id refers to the ID of a previously submitted prompt, which is useful context. However, it does not explain how to obtain the ID, its format, or any constraints, leaving some ambiguity.

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 clear action ('Fetch the outputs') and a resource ('previously submitted prompt'), which distinguishes it from tools like get_progress or get_queue. It is not as specific as naming an alternative or the exact prompt format, but it is unambiguous about the tool's core function.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be called after submitting a prompt, nor does it point to get_progress for status checking. The lack of any usage context or exclusions leaves the agent to infer the appropriate timing.

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