Get job result

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value by disclosing the paged nature, the sections available, and the structure of blockers (source/actionable/remedy), which goes beyond simple read-only hints.

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?

One compact sentence packed with useful information: it states the resource type, the paged nature, the three main components, and the blocker detail structure. No filler words; every phrase earns its place.

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 parameter schema and annotations cover safety and parameter meanings, the description adds the essential conceptual model (what each section contains) and confirms paging capability. It doesn't explicitly mention return format (no output schema exists), but the description's breakdown of sections gives a good picture. It's slightly less complete because it doesn't state default section behavior, but the schema's property description already says 'Defaults to summary.'

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 75%, with limit, offset, and section having descriptions. The description adds meaning by explaining the 'response' section is paged and that blockers have specific fields, which helps understand the section parameter's impact. It doesn't fully compensate for the undocumented job_id parameter, but that parameter's meaning is obvious from context.

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 it returns the full, paged result of a finished job, enumerating specific components: broker summary, agent self-report, and verification with blockers. This specific verb and resource distinguishes it from siblings like agy_list_jobs (listing jobs) and agy_logs (logs).

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 usage for finished jobs ('finished job'), which sets context for when to use it, but it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings or state when not to use it (e.g., when job is still running, use agy_wait). The 'finished job' qualifier provides some exclusion.

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