get_task_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses return contents (task IDs, status, timestamps, duration, records), filtering options, and task types. It doesn't explicitly state it's read-only, but the verb 'get' and context make that clear.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections and bullets, but a bit verbose. Every section contributes useful information, though the 'Task types' list is somewhat redundant with the overall purpose.

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 no output schema and only two optional parameters, the description is remarkably complete. It covers when to use, what to expect, filtering behavior, example queries, and return fields, leaving little ambiguity.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the no-parameter behavior, how each filter works, and providing concrete example values for each parameter.

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 retrieves status and execution details for data integration/ETL tasks. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_task_history and get_task_log by focusing on current status and run details, supported by explicit examples.

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?

Provides clear 'Use this tool when' scenarios and example queries. It gives strong contextual guidance but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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