get_task

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

Annotations already declare the tool is read-only and non-destructive, so the description adds value by specifying the behavioral scope: it surfaces progress and errors for specific long-running task types. This complements, rather than contradicts, the 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?

One focused sentence states the verb, target, examples, and the information returned. There is no fluff or redundant context.

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?

This is a simple, two-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema, and the description covers the main use case and scope. It could optionally explain where task_id comes from or that wait_for_completion blocks, but those details are partially implied by the schema.

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 0% and the description provides no parameter-level guidance. The parameter names ('task_id' and 'wait_for_completion') are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not clarify behavior of or relationships between these parameters."

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?

States the action 'Poll' and the resource 'a long-running task' with specific, recognizable examples (reindex, update_by_query, delete_by_query). This makes the tool's purpose clear and distinguishes it from sibling actions like cancel_task, though it does not explicitly compare itself to those siblings.

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 launching tasks such as reindex, update_by_query, or delete_by_query, and the polling language distinguishes this from cancel_task or the operations themselves. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the provided context is sufficient.

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