Inspect MELRA task status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description's only added disclosure is the word 'durable', hinting the state survives beyond a single call, which is marginal context. With annotations carrying the load, this meets the lower bar but adds little.

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 seven-word sentence with no filler and the action front-loaded. It is efficient, though so terse that it borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining what 'durable state' actually contains — statuses, progress, error fields, terminal vs in-flight states. 'Read the current durable state of a task' leaves the return contract entirely unspecified for a tool whose whole purpose is inspection.

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%, but the single taskId parameter is self-documenting via type=string, format=uuid and an explicit pattern, so the agent knows exactly what to supply. The description adds no meaning about taskId (e.g. where to obtain it) beyond the schema's regex and format constraints.

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 (Read) and a specific resource (current durable state of a task), which is clearer than a tautology like 'inspect task status'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the nearby melra_workflow_status sibling, leaving the task-vs-workflow distinction to be inferred from the 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?

No guidance on when to call this versus melra_workflow_status, melra_receipt, or melra_task_cancel, and no note about polling cadence for a status-check tool. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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