query

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 only states the tool queries status and results, but does not disclose return format, polling behavior, or that results might be pending. This gives the agent minimal behavioral insight beyond the literal function.

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?

One short sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. There is no wasted wording, and the structure is efficient for the amount of information provided.

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 (1 param, no output schema), but the description lacks essential context such as how it relates to sibling generation tools, how to handle pending results, and any assumptions about the historyId (e.g., from a prior submission). These gaps leave the agent under-informed for correct usage.

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%, with historyId described as '任务ID' (task ID) and a pattern. The tool description adds no further parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 '查询任务状态和结果' (Query task status and results) clearly states a specific verb and resource. The sibling tools are generation tools (image, video, etc.), so this tool is distinctly a retrieval/status-check operation.

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. The description does not mention that it should be used to poll after submitting a task via the generation tools, nor does it state any exclusions or conditions. Usage is only implied by the sibling context.

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