tasks_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'poll task status/result' without revealing idempotency, side effects, prerequisites (e.g., task must exist), or what happens if the task is still running. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavioral traits.

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 very concise at four words, which is appropriate for a simple tool. However, the brevity comes at the cost of omitting essential usage and behavioral information. It is front-loaded with the action but lacks structure that would help an agent decide if and how to use it.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, output schema exists), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the output contents (status vs. result, when each is available) or handle edge cases like non-existent task IDs or running tasks. The output schema may partially cover return values, but the description lacks important contextual details.

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%, and the description adds no meaning for the single required parameter 'task_id'. It does not explain what constitutes a valid task_id, where to obtain it, or any constraints. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions, providing no value beyond the parameter name.

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 'Poll task status/result' clearly identifies the tool's action (poll/get) and resource (task status/result). It distinguishes from sibling tools like tasks_create, tasks_cancel, and tasks_stats, which handle different operations. A slightly more precise verb like 'get' would improve clarity, but the purpose is adequately stated.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use tasks_get versus alternatives like tasks_stats (which might also provide status). There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned, leaving the agent without contextual decision support.

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