Check task status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful identity distinction (queue_edit task vs export job), but says nothing about what the poll returns — the set of status values, whether a terminal state carries a result payload, or how often to poll.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler; the disambiguation from job_id sits immediately after the core 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values, yet leaves the agent without any notion of status states or terminal conditions. Adequate for selecting the tool, thin for actually interpreting a poll response.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema already stating 'Task id from queue_edit.' The description restates the same provenance information, adding no format or mutation detail beyond it. 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?

States a specific verb (poll) and specific resource (a queued edit task), and explicitly separates itself from the job_id/export flow handled by check_job_status. An agent can distinguish it from its closest sibling without opening the schema.

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?

Explains the entry point (taskId returned by queue_edit) and implicitly routes export-job polling to check_job_status by naming job_id as a separate concept. It stops short of explicitly saying 'use check_job_status for exports' or describing what to do between polls, but the usage context is clear.

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