Get Task Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that it returns specific progress info (actions completed, progress percentage, meaningful comment submissions), but does not disclose rate limits, error handling, or pagination. It is consistent with annotations, adding moderate value.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the main purpose. No extraneous information; every word contributes to clarity.

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 status-check tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context about output contents (actions, progress, comments). Annotations confirm read-only and open-world hints. Minor missing details about error conditions are acceptable given low complexity.

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% for the single parameter 'task_ids', with a description 'Task IDs from create_task'. The tool description does not add further meaning beyond what the schema provides, so 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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'status and progress of one or more Upvote.club tasks', with specific details like 'actions completed, progress percentage, meaningful comment submissions'. It distinguishes from sibling tools (create_task, delete_task, get_api_reference, list_platforms) through different verb-resource combinations.

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 implies usage after creating tasks (task_ids from create_task), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or provide exclusions. Sibling tools are not mentioned, so usage guidance is indirect.

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