trinity_status

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds context by stating it returns a compact task object or task-not-found error, and confirms it does not run workers or mark messages. No contradiction.

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 two sentences, each adding value. First sentence states purpose, second gives usage and behavioral constraints. 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 has one parameter and no output schema. The description covers what it returns (compact task object or error), its read-only nature, and its place in the workflow (after dispatch/orchestration). Complete for a simple read tool.

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 100%, so the parameter 'task_id' is fully described in the schema. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond referencing the source of the identifier ('returned by dispatch, orchestration, or task listing'), which is helpful but not essential. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the specific verb 'Read' and identifies the resource as 'current state, result, route evidence, and acceptance metadata for one task id'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by stating it is for after dispatch or orchestration, not for dispatching or running workers.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use this after dispatch or orchestration to poll progress or recover a result after a timeout.' Also clarifies that it is read-only and does not run workers or mark messages as read, helping the agent choose the right tool.

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