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 so well: it defines the semantics of 'completed' (invocation and report normalization finished, not master-agent acceptance) and clarifies the absence of PASS/FAIL data. It does not mention read-only/permission requirements or pagination, but the semantic warnings are the higher-value disclosure here.

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?

Four sentences, all front-loaded around the core semantics, with no filler. Each sentence earns its place by disambiguating status from judgment, though the final sentence about the master agent is somewhat ceremonial.

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 structure need not be explained, and the description instead supplies the interpretation guidance an agent needs to avoid misreading 'completed' as acceptance. Given the single trivial parameter and available output schema, this is close to complete; only task_id provenance is unaddressed.

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?

There is a single required parameter, task_id, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description adds no format, sourcing, or constraint detail for it. The name is largely self-explanatory, keeping this at a baseline 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?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource ('Read the execution status record for one task') and immediately scopes what the record is not ('execution status only and never contains a PASS/FAIL code-review judgment'). That implicitly separates it from the sibling zcode_result, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied through the contrast with code-review judgment and the note that the master agent must independently review the diff, which hints at when this tool is appropriate. However, it never states an explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use condition, nor names an alternative tool such as zcode_result for retrieving review outcomes.

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