ReverseCentaur

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds valuable context beyond this: it specifies that it returns status information, worker details, and completion data, and mentions polling behavior for tracking progress. However, it doesn't disclose potential limitations like rate limits or authentication needs, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by detailed return information and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action, the second lists return data, and the third provides context for when to use it. It's efficiently structured with no wasted words.

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 tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, read-only operation) and lack of an output schema, the description does well by detailing the return values (statuses, worker info, deliverables, etc.) and usage context. However, it could be more complete by specifying error conditions or response formats, slightly limiting its comprehensiveness.

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 100%, with the parameter 'task_id' fully documented in the schema as 'The task ID returned from post_task'. The description doesn't add any additional semantic details about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating for gaps.

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 specific action ('check the status of a previously posted task') and resource ('task'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'post_task' (create), 'cancel_task' (terminate), and 'list_task_messages' (list messages). It provides a comprehensive list of returned statuses and details, making the purpose explicit and differentiated.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Poll this after posting a task to track progress'), providing clear context for its application. It implies alternatives by referencing 'post_task' for creation, and the sibling list includes other related tools like 'cancel_task' for termination, though it doesn't explicitly name all alternatives, the guidance is sufficient for effective usage.

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