get_task_status

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 that the tool queries a status, implying a read-only operation, but it does not disclose return format, error behavior, or any Playground-specific constraints or side effects.

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 with no filler, directly stating the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple status-query tool.

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 has one parameter and no output schema, yet the description does not explain what the status response looks like or how it relates to the sibling generate/download workflow. This leaves the agent with gaps in knowing how to interpret the result or integrate the tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the task_id parameter. While '某个生成任务' hints at the parameter's purpose, the description adds no concrete meaning beyond the schema's bare field name and type.

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 uses the specific verb '查询' (query) and a clear resource '生成任务的状态' (status of a generation task), scoped to the Playground page. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that generate or download images.

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 by the nature of the tool—checking status after generation—but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it vs. alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites.

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