Read ZCode task execution status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it warns that 'completed' means invocation and report normalization finished, not host acceptance, and that the caller must independently review the diff and checks. It omits error/not-found behavior and whether status records expire or are overwritten, but the key interpretive trap is disclosed.

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 core warning is front-loaded, but the PASS/FAIL point is restated twice ('never contains a PASS/FAIL code-review judgment' and 'NOT that the calling host accepted the work'), and the sentence beginning 'the calling host must...' is lowercase and reads as a fragment. Some redundancy could be trimmed.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be documented, and the description covers the one thing an agent could get wrong: misreading 'completed' as approval. The remaining gap is how to obtain a valid task_id and what happens on an unknown id.

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?

One parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and does not — task_id's format, source, or lifetime are never mentioned. The name is fairly self-evident, which keeps this at a minimum-viable 3 rather than lower.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read the execution status record for one task') and immediately scopes it away from a review verdict. It does not name which sibling to use instead (zcode_result, zcode_task), so the differentiation from the other zcode_* tools is left implicit.

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 establishes what the status does and does not mean, which implies the usage context (polling a task's execution state), but it never states when to call this versus zcode_result or zcode_task, nor any prerequisite such as having a task_id from a prior invocation.

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