check_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 burden. It discloses that it returns the current status of all subtasks and ties the parameter to generate_3d_* responses. It does not cover error handling, idempotency, or rate limits.

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 description is extremely concise, with two short sentences for purpose and two lines for args/returns. No wasted words.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema exists, reducing the need for extensive return descriptions. The description covers purpose, parameter source, and return summary. Could mention error states but is adequate for a status check.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains that subscription_key is the key from generate_3d_* responses, adding context beyond the schema's bare name. More detail on format would be beneficial.

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 uses a specific verb 'Проверяет' (checks) and resource 'статус задачи генерации' (status of generation task). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying generation tasks and referencing subscription keys from generate_3d_* responses.

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 description implies usage after calling generate_3d_* tools by specifying the source of subscription_key. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like check_download_result_status.

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