deepseek_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral transparency. It discloses the types of data returned (state, events, response, files, warnings) but omits details such as side effects (likely none, but not stated), error behavior for invalid task IDs, or any rate-limiting/retrieval semantics. The listing of outputs is helpful but leaves significant behavioral context undisclosed.

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 a single, concise sentence that efficiently lists the tool's outputs. No redundant or extraneous words are present, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description provides only a high-level list of return values. It does not explain key parameters like 'afterSequence', nor does it cover behavior such as whether the tool polls or is one-shot, what happens on missing tasks, or whether it returns historical data. The tool is relatively simple but still leaves critical context absent.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the parameters. 'taskId' is implicitly the identifier but 'afterSequence' is not mentioned at all, leaving its purpose (likely a sequence-based filter) ambiguous. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter descriptions.

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 the action ('Get') and the resource ('current task state, recent events, final response, changed files, and warnings'), making it distinct from sibling tools like deepseek_start or deepseek_cancel. The specific list of items returned provides a precise purpose.

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 retrieving status information but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like deepseek_wait. There is no mention of scenarios where a different tool would be more appropriate, though the context suggests it is for non-blocking status checks.

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