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 the tool targets async tasks and lists some task types, but it does not disclose response format, error behavior, or whether statuses persist. Given the strong annotation coverage, this is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words or repetition. It earns its place, but the parenthetical task-type list is incomplete relative to the schema, which costs a point for precision.

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 status-check tool with no output schema, the agent still lacks information about the returned status values, failure states, and polling behavior. The task_type parameter is only partially described, and the description does not address the config_generate and schema enum values. More context is needed for reliable invocation and interpretation.

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%, so the description carries the burden for explaining parameters. It mentions three of the five enum values for task_type but never explains task_id semantics, the default value, or why task_type is optional. The additional meaning over the schema is minimal.

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 specific action ('check the status') and the resource ('async task'), with concrete examples (scrape, crawl, map). However, it omits the other task types present in the schema (config_generate, schema) and does not explicitly differentiate this from the sibling get_schema_status tool, which creates slight ambiguity.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_schema_status or agent_request. There is no discussion of when task_type should be supplied, how status results should be interpreted, or when polling would be appropriate. The usage context is only implied by 'async task'.

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