get-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 states the tool returns status, timestamps, and basic info, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, error handling (e.g., if taskId is invalid), rate limits, or whether it's a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' but not explicit). This leaves gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and return details. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the basic purpose and return information adequately. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like error cases or permissions, which are important for a status-checking tool in a task management context with multiple sibling tools.

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 100%, with the single parameter 'taskId' documented as 'The task ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'current status of a task', specifying what information is returned (status, timestamps, basic info). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get-task-result' (which likely returns task output) and 'get-task-stats' (which likely returns aggregated metrics), though the differentiation isn't explicit.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-task-result' (for results) or 'list-tasks' (for multiple tasks). The description implies usage for checking a specific task's status but doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons with sibling tools.

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