nanobanana_get_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool queries task status and retrieves results, which implies it's a read-only operation without side effects. However, it lacks details on potential errors (e.g., invalid task IDs), rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving behavioral gaps for an agent.

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 and front-loaded, starting with a clear purpose statement followed by usage guidelines and return details. Each sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, read-only query), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and returns, and an output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed. However, it lacks error handling or behavioral constraints, slightly reducing completeness.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the parameter's origin ('task_id' from generation/edit responses) and its role in retrieving task details, enhancing understanding beyond the schema's technical definition.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('Query the status and result') and resources ('image generation or edit task'), distinguishing it from siblings like nanobanana_generate_image (which creates tasks) and nanobanana_get_tasks_batch (which handles multiple tasks). It explicitly mentions retrieving image URLs and metadata, which sets it apart from creation tools.

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 explicit usage scenarios in a bulleted list, including when to use it (e.g., to check completion status or retrieve image URLs) and implies when not to use it (e.g., not for creating new tasks, which is handled by nanobanana_generate_image or nanobanana_edit_image). This offers clear guidance on context and alternatives.

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