get_task_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value beyond them by labeling the call 'cheap' (a cost hint an agent can use for polling decisions) and describing it as a point-in-time snapshot with a defined payload. It stops short of saying anything about event-log size or truncation, which is the one behavioral detail left implicit.

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?

Four sentences, no filler, and the core capability plus its payload are front-loaded before the alternative routing. The payload enumeration is dense but each item earns its place by telling the agent what it can inspect without a second call.

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 an output schema present, the description does not need to document return shapes, and it correctly spends its budget on capability, cost profile, and sibling routing instead. For a two-parameter read tool this is complete enough that an agent can call it correctly on the first attempt.

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% and the task_id description already explains the 'omit it to get the current workstream task' default and when to pass a historical id. The description adds no parameter guidance beyond that, so this sits at the baseline 3 where the schema does the work.

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 and resource ('Read where one task stands right now') and enumerates exactly what comes back: state, every execution with id/role/status/error, the event log, and a brief with progress, waiting_on, workflow, pending_dispatch. That level of specificity is enough to separate it from get_task_result and get_task_usage without opening any 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?

Gives an explicit use case ('call it to decide the next step') and then routes to three named alternatives with the condition that selects each: wait_for_task for blocking, get_task_result for agent reports and evidence, get_task_usage for token usage. When-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are both covered.

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