ssh_get_task_result

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states the return includes output, exit code, and metadata, which covers the main behavioral traits of a getter. However, it does not mention side effects, prerequisites, or potential errors (e.g., if task is not completed).

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, front-loading the purpose and key return details. Every sentence adds value with 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?

Given that the tool is a simple getter with an output schema (signaled), the description covers purpose and return values. However, it lacks parameter details (task_id) and usage guidelines, leaving gaps for an agent to use it correctly.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention the task_id parameter at all. It provides no context about what task_id represents or how to obtain it, leaving the parameter's semantics entirely to the schema (which has no 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 gets the final result of a completed task, specifies SEP-1686 compliance, and lists return contents (output, exit code, metadata). This distinguishes it from siblings like ssh_get_task_output and ssh_get_task_status.

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 the tool should be used only for completed tasks, but no explicit guidance on when to use versus siblings (e.g., ssh_get_task_output, ssh_get_task_status) or when not to call it. The word 'completed' provides some context but lacks alternatives.

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