origin_bridge_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 burden. It states 'Read' indicating a non-destructive operation, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, timeout behavior, or what happens if the task does not exist.

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 single-sentence description is concise (13 words), but it lacks structure and buries the fact that it only reads status/result/error, not other details.

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 5 parameters with no explanation and no usage guidance, the description is insufficient despite having an output schema. The agent cannot reliably invoke the tool correctly without parameter context.

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 0% and the description provides no meaning for any of the 5 parameters, including the required task_id and optional host, port, token, timeout. This leaves agents to guess their purpose.

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 'Read status, result, or error for an Origin bridge background task' clearly states the action (read) and resource (task status), and distinguishes it from siblings like cancel, list, submit 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 vs alternatives. The description implies usage after submitting a task, but does not mention prerequisites, exclusion criteria, or when to prefer origin_bridge_list_tasks.

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