get_task_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful context by stating that on SUCCESS, result contains markdown/transcript/audio_meta. However, it does not disclose behavior on failure, whether the tool is strictly read-only, or how invalid task IDs are handled.

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 consists of two short sentences, front-loading the core purpose ('查询笔记生成任务进度') followed by a succinct result detail. There is no redundant filler.

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 an output schema present, the description does not need to enumerate return fields, but it adds a helpful note about SUCCESS. It lacks error-handling context, yet for a single-parameter read-only status query, the description is largely complete.

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 only parameter, task_id, has no schema description (coverage 0%). The description does not explain where task_id comes from or how to obtain it, only implying a connection to note generation. This is a significant gap for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly.

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's function: '查询笔记生成任务进度' (query note generation task progress). It also specifies what the result contains on SUCCESS, distinguishing it from sibling tools like wait_for_note and generate_note.

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?

The description implies usage for checking task progress via '查询进度', but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like wait_for_note. There is no clear when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance, leaving the agent to infer the polling pattern.

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