ecosystem_task_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It says 'Consulta' (consult), implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose prerequisites, error behavior, or the return format. The purpose of the tasks_file parameter is also left opaque, creating ambiguity about the tool's 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the core action and filter options. Every word earns its place, with no filler or 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return values and any dependencies. It does not describe the response structure, nor does it clarify the tasks_file parameter. The description is too sparse to fully guide an agent, especially for a tool with three optional parameters.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for task_id ('por ID') but merely repeats the filter_agent enum values already present in the schema. The tasks_file parameter is completely unexplained in both the schema and description, leaving a significant gap in parameter understanding.

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's function: querying task status by ID or filtered by agent/status. It lists concrete filter values (unclaimed, claimed, done, backlog, agent-id), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like ecosystem_task_claim or ecosystem_task_done that modify tasks.

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 scenarios (query by ID or filter by agent/status) but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use this tool. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions, so the agent must infer when to use this over other task-related tools.

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