get_task_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the returned fields (percent complete, current phase, ETA) and a key behavioral constraint, 'Agent-scoped: returns the calling agent's task status only'. It does not explicitly confirm read-only semantics or permission requirements, leaving a small gap.

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, all front-loaded with the core action first, then usage condition, return values, and scope restriction. Every sentence adds information an agent can act on; no filler.

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?

A simple zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields and the agent-scoping rule. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly appears to be missing.

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 declares zero properties, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline is 4. The description correctly implies the call needs no arguments, matching the empty schema.

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 ('Check') and resource ('task status') plus scope ('whether a task is currently running and its progress'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from run_task (the monitored task) and stop_task (cancellation), so an agent can route without opening sibling schemas.

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?

Gives a concrete trigger condition: 'Use to poll status when not receiving progress notifications'. It also names the related tools and their relationship. It stops short of stating when not to use it (e.g., vs. get_trigger_status or session tools), so it is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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