nano_banana_get_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the operation is a read-style 'get' and includes a warning against hammering the server, which is useful. However, it does not explain error behavior, rate limits, or what the response contains beyond 'status/results'.

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 concise sentences with the purpose front-loaded and a brief, valuable usage tip. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 polling tool with one parameter, the description covers the core purpose and usage context. It lacks explicit return value details, but the low complexity and clear focus mitigate this. It is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 schema already fully describes the single parameter (taskId) with 100% coverage, so the description adds little beyond reinforcing that the ID comes from the generation tool. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 explicitly states the tool's verb ('Get') and resource ('status/results') and ties it to a specific source (tasks from nano_banana_generate_image), making its purpose unmistakable. It also distinguishes from the sibling tool by focusing on polling rather than generation.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool (when polling tasks with auto-task enabled) and provides a practical tip (wait between polls). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or discuss alternatives, but the sibling relationship is clear enough.

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