nexus_task_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, establishing the safety profile. The description adds the set of statuses included in the DAG, but does not disclose return format, pagination, or other behavioral details, so the added value is moderate.

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?

Single compact sentence with no wasted words. Clearly states the action and scope, making every word earn its place.

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 simplicity (no params, read-only, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose and status categories. However, it omits details about the response structure (e.g., whether it's a nested graph or flat list), which would help an agent parse the result.

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?

Tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is complete and parameter semantics are not needed. Baseline 4 applies because the description offers no parameter information but none is necessary.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'View' and names resource 'task DAG', enumerating statuses (ready, blocked, in_progress, completed, failed). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like nexus_task_submit or nexus_task_update.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternatives are provided. The description only states what it does; usage context is implied by the read-only task DAG focus but does not mention exclusions or alternatives.

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