BearQ: Get Task Status

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by disclosing the set of possible statuses (running/complete/error/cancelled) and signaling a lightweight response relative to full task details. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 message is two front-loaded sentences with statuses and the cost trade-off first. Some space is spent restating the parameter in a manual Parameters section that duplicates the schema, so it is not maximally lean.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only lookup, the annotations carry the safety profile and the description supplies the meaningful output domain (statuses) and a cost rationale. An explicit note on the exact return shape or a pointer to bearq_get_task when full details are needed would make it more complete, but nothing essential for a basic call is missing.

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 already covers taskId with description and constraints, and schema_description_coverage is 100%. The description only repeats the parameter name and 'BearQ task ID', adding no new semantics or format guidance, which fits the baseline of 3.

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 action ('Retrieves the status of a task') and enumerates the possible status values. The phrase 'Cheaper than fetching full task details' distinguishes it from the full-task retrieval sibling without relying on the title alone. This clearly separates it from run/stop/wait sibling tools.

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 cost note ('Cheaper than fetching full task details') tells an agent to prefer this tool when only status is needed. It does not explicitly name the alternative tool (e.g., bearq_get_task) or spell out when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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