get_claude_task

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious interpretation context: that cache/input token fields are separate provider fields and that a list-price estimate is not an actual subscription charge. These caveats prevent misreading of returned usage data, though nothing is said about behavior for unknown or expired task ids.

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?

Four short sentences with no filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and each following sentence adds a distinct caveat. Phrasing is slightly telegraphic but every sentence carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description does some of the work by characterizing the return (status, answer, usage) and warning about field semantics. It still omits the terminal-state list, how to obtain a valid task_id, and error behavior, which matter for a polling tool.

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?

There is one parameter, task_id, with 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about its expected format or provenance. The parameter is self-evident by name, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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?

States a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('a Claude task') plus exactly what is returned: status, final answer and usage. The 'Claude' qualifier implicitly separates it from the sibling get_codex_task, though the description never names that sibling explicitly.

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 line 'Queued/running is not completion' implies this should be polled until terminal state, which is useful implied usage. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus get_codex_task or bridge_status, and no note on where the task_id comes from (presumably submit_claude_task).

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