ghidriff_job_result

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose that results are available for finished or running jobs, which is useful context, but it does not say whether the call blocks, returns partial data for running jobs, or what happens for an unknown job_id.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the core action and object, no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.

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?

The presence of an output schema and 100% schema coverage means return values and parameters are already documented. What is missing is guidance on selecting this tool over ghidriff_read_report or ghidriff_job_status, and any behavioral caveats such as partial results or blocking.

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?

Input schema already documents all three parameters (job_id, max_functions, include_metadata_diff) with descriptions, so the description need not repeat them. Baseline 3 applies; the description adds no parameter-specific meaning.

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?

States a specific action ('Return') and target ('structured result of a finished (or running) diff job'), so an agent can tell this is the retrieval tool for diff output rather than status/log/report. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but 'structured result' and 'job' scope already separate it from ghidriff_job_status, ghidriff_job_log, and ghidriff_read_report.

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 when to use it: after a diff job has been started and a result is desired, including while the job is still running. It gives no explicit exclusions or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer how this differs from ghidriff_read_report or ghidriff_job_status.

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