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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves status but doesn't explain what 'status' entails (e.g., pending, completed, failed), whether it's read-only (implied by 'get'), any rate limits, authentication needs, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool interacting with asynchronous tasks.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without redundancy or fluff. It's appropriately front-loaded and sized for a simple retrieval 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?

Given the complexity of asynchronous task status (which often involves states like progress or errors), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, return values, or usage context, making it inadequate for an agent to fully understand how to invoke and interpret results from this 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with parameters 'apiId' and 'taskId' documented as 'API ID' and 'Task ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as explaining where to obtain these IDs or their format. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('status of an asynchronous task'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'get_api' or 'get_collection' beyond the resource type, as all 'get_' tools share similar retrieval patterns without explicit differentiation in the description.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing task ID), exclusions, or related tools for task management, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone in a context with many sibling tools.

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