gen_tripo_get_task_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the full burden falls on the description. It discloses that the tool returns output URLs but never states whether it blocks, what happens for in-progress tasks, or whether it is read-only beyond the word 'get'. The KB pointer does not substitute for explicit behavioral disclosure.

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 two short sentences plus a one-line example; no filler. The essential purpose is front-loaded, and the KB reference and example earn their place.

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 one-parameter getter with an output schema, the description covers the basic call but leaves pipeline context unanswered. It doesn't clarify the relationship with gen_tripo_wait_for_task/gen_tripo_download_result or the behavior when a task is still running, making it incomplete for an agent unfamiliar with Tripo workflow. The KB reference is a pointer, not inline 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 schema has one required string task_id with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides a call example with 'task_id="model-task-id"', which adds a syntax hint, but it doesn't say where the task_id comes from or what format is expected. This is minimally sufficient but not rich.

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 clear verb ('Get'), resource ('Tripo task status'), and return content ('output URLs'), so an agent understands the basic operation. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from near-siblings like gen_tripo_wait_for_task or gen_tripo_download_result, so it falls short of top-tier sibling distinction.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance appears; the description doesn't say to call this after submitting a generation task or before download, nor mention gen_tripo_wait_for_task as the polling alternative. The only contextual cue is the KB link, which an agent would have to open. This is effectively no usage guidance.

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