origin_bridge_task_status

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states 'Read' suggesting non-destructive behavior, but does not disclose potential behaviors like error handling, blocking nature, or prerequisites. The description is too brief to convey behavioral traits beyond the basic read action.

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?

Single sentence, no wasted words. The key information is front-loaded. Every word serves a 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?

With 8 parameters and an output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain parameter interdependencies (e.g., log_limit effect when include_logs is false) or scenarios. However, the presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, keeping the score at a mid level.

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 3. The description does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter. It mentions 'status, result, or optional recent logs' which aligns with include_result and include_logs, but the schema covers those details.

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 uses the specific verb 'Read' and clearly identifies the resource as 'status, result, or optional recent logs for an Origin bridge background task'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like origin_bridge_cancel_task and origin_bridge_list_tasks.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., after submitting a task) or when not to use it. The description implies checking task status but lacks comparative context.

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