rh_get_results

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real side effects: it writes validated local original files, renders images inline in chat, and creates local derivative files without re-submitting a task. That is meaningful behavioral disclosure. It still omits permission/auth needs, overwrite behavior for existing files, and how unsupported formats are handled.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the primary action, with no filler. It is somewhat dense by packing three distinct behaviors into one clause chain, but every phrase adds information.

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?

For a no-annotation, no-output-schema tool the description adequately conveys what happens on invocation. It leaves gaps on return shape, file naming/locations, and what 'confirmed' status entails, which an agent would need for reliable use.

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% and the description never mentions job_id or what a valid job id refers to. However, with only one self-evident required parameter, the gap is minor. Baseline is below 4 because the description adds no meaning over the schema for the lone parameter.

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 names concrete verbs and resources: downloading confirmed provider outputs, rendering supported images inline, and creating preview/poster derivatives. It is clearly distinct from a pure review tool, though it never explicitly names the sibling rh_review_result or rh_job it relates to. An agent can tell what the tool produces, but not precisely how it differs from the review/result siblings.

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 phrase 'without submitting another task' implies this is a post-generation retrieval step that does not re-run anything, which is useful context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites (e.g. job must be confirmed), and no naming of alternatives such as rh_review_result. Usage is only implied.

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