process.status

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds the phrase 'execution metadata,' which hints at additional data beyond simple status, but it does not elaborate on what that metadata includes or whether the operation can fail. Since the annotation covers the primary safety profile, a 3 is reasonable.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. There is no redundancy or fluff, though it is extremely minimal. It earns a 4 for being concise and directly actionable.

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?

The tool has only two required parameters and no output schema, yet the description omits any explanation of what 'execution metadata' includes, how to interpret the response, or when to call this versus sibling tools. For a simple status query, an agent needs more context to use it correctly, especially given zero schema descriptions.

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%, and the description provides no explanation for task_id or process_id. The agent is left to infer their meaning from the names alone. With no schema descriptions and no additional clarification, the tool fails to convey parameter semantics.

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 states a clear action ('Return') and a specific resource ('current status and execution metadata for a Task process'). It distinguishes from siblings like process.output and process.cancel by implying a read-only status query, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions that would route an agent to process.status instead of process.output or task.resume. Usage context is entirely absent.

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