agents_status

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'Return the current state' without detailing behavior: whether it's non-blocking, what happens for unknown tasks, what the state values are, or any side effects. This is a thin disclosure for a tool that could have various internal behaviors.

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, immediately states the action, no filler. Perfectly concise for the information it conveys.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, but the description lacks any mention of return format, error conditions, or how this compares to sibling status tools like kimi_status. For a status endpoint, it's adequate but leaves out details that could help an agent know what to expect.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameter. It says 'asynchronous agent task,' which adds context that task_id belongs to such a task, but it doesn't clarify how the ID is obtained, what format beyond UUID, or any special values. The description adds minimal value over the schema field name.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Return' the 'current state' of 'an asynchronous agent task.' It directly maps to status-checking and is distinct from sibling tools like agents_spawn (create) or agents_cancel (cancel).

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 usage context is implied: call this with a task_id to check on an async task. However, there's no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over agents_wait or agents_logs, or when it's not appropriate. The description doesn't name alternatives or exclusions.

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