List compact child status

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the burden. It explicitly says 'Read', implying a non-mutating operation, and discloses the compact row shape and the behavioral rule around leaseExpired. It could explain more about error behaviors or sorting, but it gives solid transparency for a simple list-like read tool.

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 compact: two sentences carry the operation, the output, the invocation pattern, the negative polling rule, and the cancellation guidance. Every sentence earns its place and is front-loaded with the core 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?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the input, the output fields, the correct timing after wait_agent, and the special leaseExpired behavior. Minor details like pagination or specific HTTP responses are not covered, but they are not necessary for invoking this tool correctly.

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 provides no description coverage for parentTaskId, but the description compensates by identifying the parameter as a coordinator task whose direct children are listed. This gives the parameter a clear semantic role, even though it does not explicitly spell out the parameter name in prose.

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 identifies a specific operation via the verb 'Read' and a precise resource: 'direct children of a coordinator task.' It also enumerates the returned fields (ids, status, version, summary, leaseExpired), making it easy to distinguish from more generic tools like task_get.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit: 'Call once after wait_agent' and 'Do not poll with task_get.' The description also routes the agent in the leaseExpired case directly to cancellation, which is exactly the kind of when-to-use guidance that separates this tool from siblings.

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