get_task_result

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does this excellently by explaining that stdout/stderr are the agent's own output, that the executor_log is returned separately with glog chatter filtered out, and that raw=true provides the unfiltered record. This goes beyond what a typical tool description provides.

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 well-structured, opening with the core purpose and then adding necessary detail about output composition. Every sentence adds value, explaining not just what happens but why (avoiding buried answers). It is thorough without being verbose.

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 the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the nuanced behavior of include_output and raw, the separation of executor_log, and the filtering rationale. The absence of explicit return value details is acceptable because an output schema exists.

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 compensate. It does so by explaining include_output and raw in detail, clarifying their effects on the returned result. run_id is self-explanatory from its name, so the description covers the critical parameter semantics effectively.

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 'Get a model-friendly result view' with the option for raw output, specifying the verb 'Get' and the resource 'task result'. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_task_status (status vs result) and list_subagent_runs (list vs single result).

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 clear context on when to use the tool: when a model-friendly result view is needed, optionally with raw output. It explains the behavior of include_output and raw, but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, like using get_task_status for status checks.

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