amber_get_store_task_status

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: read-only, not rate-limited, retry policy (up to 3 times, no duplicates), processing phases, expiration after 7 days, and error handling. This is thorough and meets the burden.

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?

Well-structured with clear front-loading: purpose first, then usage, statuses, phases, error handling. Slightly verbose due to detailed phase explanation, but every part serves a purpose.

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?

Comprehensive coverage of all relevant aspects: statuses, processing phases, retry, expiration, and error responses. No output schema, so description handles return value explanation effectively.

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% for the one parameter, but the description adds value by clarifying the source of the task_id (UUID from amber_store_memory response) and the meaning of invalid IDs (not_found). This goes beyond schema.

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 tool checks the processing status of a memory store task, with specific verb 'Check' and resource 'processing status'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like amber_store_memory and amber_get_memory by specifying it is used after storing memory.

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 when to use this tool: after amber_store_memory to confirm processing completion. Also notes it is not rate-limited and read-only. Does not explicitly mention when not to use, but the context is sufficient.

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