get_task_status

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits fully. It mentions polling and returning once done, but lacks critical details: whether it blocks, timeouts, error handling, or if it can be called multiple times. This leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's runtime behavior.

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 extremely concise—two sentences that front-load the core purpose. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 simplicity of one required parameter and no output schema, the description could still explain return values, polling behavior, and error handling. The minimal information makes the tool significantly under-documented for effective use.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the task_id parameter at all. It fails to add meaning beyond the schema, leaving the agent without guidance on what value to provide or how to obtain it.

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 polls a background task and returns the result when done, with specific examples (autoroute, batch export). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like list_tasks by indicating a polling/waiting behavior, though it could be more explicit about the differentiation.

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 such as list_tasks or cleanup_tasks. The description implies usage for waiting on a task, but does not specify prerequisites or when not to use it.

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