get_async_task

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 known. The description adds the behavioral context of polling a background task's status and result, but it does not disclose any additional traits such as behavior when the task is not found, retry logic, or output specifics. Since annotations carry the safety burden, the description provides minimal but adequate transparency beyond the 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 a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action 'Poll' and clearly states the resource. It contains no unnecessary words and is easy to parse.

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 structure (one parameter), the presence of an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is largely complete. It accurately conveys the tool's purpose and operation. It lacks explicit workflow context (e.g., referencing submit_async_task), but for a simple polling tool, the description is sufficiently comprehensive for an agent to understand and invoke it.

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 0% and the description does not mention parameters at all. The only parameter, task_id, is self-explanatory from its name and type, but the description does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions by explaining how to obtain or use the task_id, leaving the agent to infer its meaning from context.

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 "Poll a background task's status and result" uses the specific verb 'Poll' and clearly identifies the resource (background task's status and result). It distinguishes from sibling tools like submit_async_task, cancel_async_task, and list_async_tasks by indicating a targeted retrieval of a single task's status and result.

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 for checking the status of an asynchronous background task, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_async_tasks, nor does it mention exclusions. It provides no direct guidance on the workflow (e.g., after submitting a task) or when to prefer another tool.

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