get_task_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the output structure (task IDs, status, timestamps, etc.), filtering behavior, and task types. However, it does not mention if the tool is read-only, required permissions, or any rate limits, which would add transparency.

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 well-structured with sections (use cases, output fields, filtering options, examples) and uses bullet points for readability. It is comprehensive yet concise, with every section adding value.

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 that there is no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the expected return values (task IDs, status, timestamps, duration, records processed, space info). It also covers filtering options and provides example queries, making it complete for an agent to use 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 input schema already has clear descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage). The description adds context by explaining the effect of no parameters ('Show all tasks') and providing example usage, which goes beyond the schema and helps the agent understand parameter semantics.

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 purpose: 'Get status and execution details of data integration and ETL tasks.' It specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'task status/execution details', distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_task_history or get_task_log.

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 provides explicit when-to-use scenarios (e.g., 'What tasks are running?', 'Monitoring data pipeline execution') and example queries. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare to alternative tools, which would elevate it to a 5.

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