获取图片生成任务详情

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the key success behavior (images field becomes an array of public links) and provides the API endpoint. However, it does not mention error handling, failure states, or authentication requirements, leaving gaps in behavioral expectations for a plain status query.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and includes an API endpoint that provides additional mapping without redundancy. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or tautology.

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 single-parameter task with no output schema or annotations, the description is fairly complete: it explains the purpose, the success output (images array of public links), and the endpoint. It lacks error behavior and response details beyond success, but given the tool's simplicity and the sibling context, the core information is sufficiently covered.

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 0% for the single parameter taskId. The description indirectly explains it through the endpoint path 'GET /openapi/v1/images/generation/tasks/{taskId}', implying taskId is the task identifier. However, it does not explicitly state the parameter's origin, required format, or how to obtain it, so compensation is partial.

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 action: '查询图片生成任务状态' (query image generation task status). It specifies the resource (image generation task) and the scope (status check), and it distinguishes itself from siblings by mapping directly to the GET endpoint for a single task, unlike list_generation_tasks or generate_image.

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 provides clear context that this tool is for checking task status, and reveals the success condition (images field contains downloadable links). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives such as wait_for_generation_task for polling, so it lacks exclusions.

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