agy_run_result

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden. It discloses the main behavioral trait: offset_bytes enables bounded chunk reading. However, it does not state whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if the run is incomplete, or any rate limits or size constraints.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word is necessary; there is no redundancy or verbosity.

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 presence of an output schema (no need to explain return values), the description adequately covers the two operation modes. However, it lacks lifecycle context (e.g., that it should only be called after a run completes) and does not mention the relationship to other run-related tools.

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 should explain parameters. It only mentions offset_bytes's role (bounded chunk) but does not clarify run_id (required identifier) or max_bytes (default chunk size). The description adds limited value beyond the schema structure.

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 reads final result metadata and distinguishes two modes: full read or chunked read when offset_bytes is set. The verb 'Read' and resource 'final result metadata' are specific, and it differentiates from sibling tools like agy_run_input or agy_run_observe.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., that the run must be completed), nor does it contrast with similar siblings like agy_run_observe or agy_review_result.

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