arvan_task_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's mention of retrieval is expected. It adds value by specifying output includes 'full status, last result, and run history', but doesn't disclose any potential side effects or limitations. No contradiction with 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?

The description is very concise at 11 words, but it is not structured with front-loaded key information. It efficiently conveys the core functionality without extra verbiage.

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?

Given the simple single-parameter tool and annotations covering safety, the description is minimal but adequate. However, it lacks mention of how to get task IDs or what constitutes a 'background task', leaving some gaps for an AI agent.

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?

The input schema has one parameter 'task_id' with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain what task_id is or how to obtain it. For a single common parameter, minimal guidance is provided.

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 it retrieves a background task's full status, last result, and run history. It uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'background task', distinguishing it from sibling tools like arvan_task_list (list tasks) and arvan_task_submit (submit task).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisite steps (e.g., obtaining task_id from arvan_task_list) or when not to use it. Given the many sibling tools, usage context is largely implied.

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