aiworkhub_agent_collect_result

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

The description's 'READ-ONLY' claim merely repeats readOnlyHint=true rather than adding context. It does not explain what 'bounded' means in practice (truncation, log-byte capping), what happens if output exceeds the bound, or what the collected evidence actually contains.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the safety marker leads. It is efficient, though efficiency here partly reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but with two undocumented parameters at 0% coverage and no usage or lifecycle context, the description leaves real gaps for an agent trying to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry both parameters; it never mentions request_id at all, and only vaguely gestures at max_log_bytes through the word 'bounded'. An agent gets no format or semantics for the required identifier.

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?

Names a verb ('collect') and a resource ('worker output'/'review-readiness evidence'), so the general intent is inferable, but 'review-readiness evidence' is opaque jargon and nothing distinguishes it from adjacent tools like aiworkhub_agent_task_status or aiworkhub_agent_accept_preview.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus the many sibling agent/task tools, and no prerequisite or lifecycle context (e.g., after a worker completes). The only guidance is the 'READ-ONLY' prefix.

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