task_status

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile needs no further explanation. The description adds genuine context beyond the annotations that the job state is persisted and survives MCP restarts, but it does not cover behavior such as polling, error states, or whether completed results ever expire.

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?

It is two short sentences and front-loads the core action and return values before the persistence note. Every sentence carries information, and there is no filler.

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?

The output schema exists, so the return values do not need to be spelled out, and the persistence note is a helpful extra. Still, for a tool whose only input is an undocumented required job_id, the description leaves a practical gap: it does not say where that identifier comes from or how the tool relates to its status and transfer siblings.

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 schema has 0% description coverage: job_id is a bare string with no description. The description never mentions job_id, its format, or how to obtain one (for example, from a transfer start or a list_transfers call), so the meaning of the only parameter is undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and specific resources ('transfer progress, checkpoint state and result'), so the agent knows exactly what this returns. However, it does nothing to separate the tool from the sibling tool 'status' or from 'list_transfers': the agent cannot tell from the text which of these overlapping lookups to pick.

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?

It provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool rather than 'status' or 'list_transfers', and no prerequisite or exclusion is stated. The phrase 'Jobs survive MCP restarts' hints that this is a persistent status lookup, but it never says under what circumstances the agent should call it.

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