Get Task Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it's a polling mechanism 'Per R12 streaming model' and clarifies it checks progress/completion. This goes slightly beyond annotations, though it doesn't detail polling intervals or response format.

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 concise and well-structured, with purpose stated first and usage conditions clearly separated. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundancy or padding.

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?

For a simple poll tool with one parameter and annotations covering safety, the description provides usage context, prerequisites, and the type of task. It mentions the streaming model but doesn't describe the return format; however, the agent can infer it returns status. This is adequate for correct invocation.

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 100% — the taskId parameter is fully described as the ID returned by long-running tools. The description reinforces this but doesn't add new meaning beyond the schema. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Poll') and resource ('long-running clawops task'), and names the exact tools (clawops_up, clawops_destroy, clawops_apply) that return the taskId. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like clawops_status (which likely reports overall system state) and other list tools.

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?

It provides explicit 'Use when' conditions (user waiting on a long-running deploy/destroy, or checking if an operation finished) and a 'Do NOT use when' condition (no active taskId — start the operation first). This leaves no ambiguity about when to invoke it versus starting a new operation.

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