vizcom_get_result

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that output URLs are returned, which is useful beyond annotations, but says nothing about behavior when a generation is still pending or fails. No contradiction with the annotations.

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?

A single tight sentence with the read scope front-loaded and the exclusion trailing; every clause 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?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema and rich annotations, the description covers what is returned (prompt plus output URLs) and what it is not. Remaining gaps around pending/failed generations and promptId provenance are minor.

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?

Only one parameter (promptId, uuid string) with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema provides no meaning. "Read an existing prompt" weakly implies promptId identifies that prompt, but the description never states the format, source, or what an invalid id yields.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("Read an existing prompt and generated output URLs") and adds a negative scope clause ruling out submission. It is distinguishable from generation siblings, though it does not name any specific alternative such as vizcom_download_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 "does not submit a new generation" clause gives an implicit when-not condition, which is useful. However, no alternative is named for the retrieve-vs-generate choice, and there is no guidance on prerequisites (e.g. the prompt must already exist or be finished rendering).

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