job_result

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the error behavior for unfinished jobs, which is valuable. However, it does not mention whether retrieval is idempotent, whether results are consumed, or any side effects — acceptable for a simple result getter but not richly transparent.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the error case, then parameter guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 value details are already covered. The description covers the error condition, the ID source, and the completion requirement. It could be slightly more complete by referencing job_status for progress checks, but overall it is sufficient for a one-parameter tool.

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 only says 'Job Id', but the description adds meaning: 'Id devolvido pela tool que iniciou o job' clarifies that the ID comes from the initiating tool. This is useful guidance beyond the raw schema.

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's purpose: 'Obtém o resultado de um job que já terminou' — retrieving the result of a completed job. This distinguishes it from siblings like job_status, which monitors progress.

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 explicitly notes that calling it while the job is still running returns an error ('Retorna erro job_not_finished se ainda estiver rodando'). This serves as a when-not-to-use condition. It does not explicitly name an alternative like job_status for checking progress, so it falls short of a 5.

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