Get Task

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that this is a read/query-only tool and adds a strong anti-polling constraint, but says nothing about cost, latency, or what happens when the task is still running versus finished.

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?

Short and front-loaded, but the 'only call when the user explicitly asks' instruction appears twice — once in the parenthetical and again in the warning — with no added information the second time.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, with zero annotation coverage and zero parameter documentation, the description leaves the agent without any indication of which task_id/format is valid or how to handle a still-pending task.

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 both parameters (task_id, server) are undocumented in structured data and the description adds nothing about them. It does not explain what task_id refers to or how the optional server parameter affects lookup.

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 and resource: query task status and final result. It is distinguishable from submit_task/cancel_task, and the warning implicitly contrasts with poll_task, though that sibling is never named.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('only when the user explicitly requests') and an explicit exclusion ('do not poll proactively'), which is exactly the guidance agents most often get wrong on task tools. It stops short of naming poll_task as the alternative, so routing is implied rather than directed.

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