Get Recrawl Task Status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing beyond the operation's name. It does not say whether the call is read-only, what task states are returned, how a missing/expired task_id is handled, or whether the task must belong to the given user_id. For a status-polling tool this is a real gap, though the output schema partially compensates on the return side.

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?

A single short sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though so terse that it forgoes any structure that could carry additional context.

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 existence of an output schema means return values need not be explained, and all three parameters are documented in the schema. However, with no annotations and no behavioral detail, the definition is only minimally viable for an agent that must know when to poll this tool and what task lifecycle states to expect.

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 100%, with host_id, task_id, and user_id each documented in the schema (including the host_id format string). The description adds no syntax, format, or relationship detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('status of a specific recrawl task'), which is enough to distinguish it from the read-only siblings at a glance. The word 'specific' hints at the singular counterpart to get_recrawl_tasks, but the sibling is never named, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no indication of where task_id comes from (request_recrawl or get_recrawl_tasks), and no exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must infer the entire usage context from the name alone.

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