fish_get_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses task states and result behavior (including audio URL and error message), but omits details like whether the operation is read-only, possible 404 errors, or polling frequency limits.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence, bullet-point task states, and a concise return summary. No redundant information; every sentence adds value.

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 low-complexity status-check tool with an output schema available, the description covers essential aspects: purpose, states, and expected result. It lacks a note about error handling (e.g., task not found), but this is minor given the schema presence.

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?

There is only one parameter, task_id, and the schema provides full description (100% coverage) including its source from fish_generate_audio. The tool description adds no extra parameter context, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Query the status and result of a Fish audio generation task' with a specific verb and resource. The singular 'a task' differentiates it from sibling fish_get_tasks_batch, and the mention of retrieving audio URL clarifies its purpose.

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?

Explicitly instructs 'Use this to check if a task is complete and retrieve the resulting audio URL' and provides polling guidance via task states ('keep polling'). However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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