adl_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one real behavioral trait: cancellation can interrupt a running wait. It says nothing about whether cancel is idempotent or reversible, what status reports, or how long tasks persist, which are the gaps that matter for a mutation path.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the destructive caveat is placed second where it is noticed. It is arguably too terse rather than too long, which is an under-specification issue better captured elsewhere.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter descriptions; the description supplies only a one-line purpose and one caveat. For a tool whose required task_id must be obtained from elsewhere and whose status output is undefined, an agent is left guessing about the lifecycle and return shape.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly maps 'inspect progress' to command=status and 'cancel' to command=cancel, which is useful for the enum, but it never explains where task_id comes from or its format, leaving the required parameter unexplained in both schema and description.

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 pair (inspect progress / cancel) on a specific resource (a task), and the enum values in the schema confirm the two modes. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like adl_wait or adl_execute, which likely produce the tasks this tool inspects, so an agent cannot fully place it in the workflow.

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 only implied by the two verbs: use it to check on or cancel a task. There is no guidance on when a task exists, which sibling creates one, or when to poll status versus use adl_wait, and no explicit exclusions.

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