task_status

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 states the tool is read-like (checks, reads) but does not elaborate on side effects, authentication requirements, or other behavioral traits. The description is too minimal to provide adequate transparency.

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 concise (single sentence) but underspecifies the tool's capabilities. While no words are wasted, the lack of detail makes it less effective. It could be restructured to include parameter hints or usage notes without significant bloat.

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 simplicity (3 parameters, output schema exists), the description is incomplete. It does not mention the output schema, return values, or how to interpret results. The lack of parameter explanations and behavioral notes leaves gaps for correct invocation.

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 does not explain any of the three parameters (target, task_name, tail_lines). The description adds no semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, leaving the agent uninformed about parameter roles.

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 action ('checks the status and reads log tail') and the resource ('tmux long-running task'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like task_kill, task_start, and task_list, which have different purposes.

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 usage context (checking task status and logs) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The differentiation from siblings is clear from purpose alone.

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