pbs_get_task_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the behavioral detail that exit status is returned only if the task is finished, which is useful beyond annotations.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with zero wasted words. It conveys the core purpose and key output detail efficiently.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with one well-described parameter, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description is mostly complete. It could explicitly mention that a UPID is required, but the schema covers this, and the description covers the core return semantics.

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?

The sole parameter `upid` has a comprehensive schema description including format and provenance ('Full UPID string as returned by run_gc / run_verify / prune. Format: ...'). The tool description adds no parameter info, but the schema does the heavy lifting, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Return') and precise resource ('current state of a PBS task') with details ('running / stopped' plus 'exit status if finished'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like pbs_get_task_log (logs) and pbs_list_tasks (listing tasks).

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: to check the state and exit status of a specific PBS task. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the specificity implies when it's appropriate versus siblings.

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