task_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies read-only but says nothing about whether the call blocks, what state values can be returned, whether the result field is absent while the task is still running, or what happens with an unknown/expired task_id.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. However, its brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency, given the behavioral gaps.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required parameter, the definition is too thin. The description should at minimum explain the task state/result relationship, polling expectations, and the source of task_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?

The single parameter task_id has 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not compensate by stating that it is the identifier returned by start_task or its expected format. The one param that matters most for correct invocation is undocumented.

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 pairs a specific verb ("Read") with a specific resource ("task state and final result"), so an agent knows it is a status/result retrieval operation. It never explicitly names how it differs from start_task or cancel_task, so differentiation is left to the tool name.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus start_task or cancel_task, and no mention of the typical pattern (call start_task, then poll this with the returned id). The usage is only inferable from the name and description.

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