library_task_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and explicitly marks the operation as read-only ('只读'), which is the key behavioral trait. It also gives example state values, adding useful context about the domain. It does not cover rate limits or auth, but for a simple status query this is acceptable.

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 one compact sentence with no filler. The core purpose and key behavioral note are front-loaded, and every part earns its place.

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 one-optional-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is close to adequate. However, it relies on inference for whether 'state' filters results, and it gives only example values rather than full enumeration. A sentence clarifying the state parameter's effect would make it fully self-sufficient.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by giving example state values (READY / REQUIRES_INST), which the schema alone does not provide. However, it never explicitly states that the state parameter is an optional filter or what omitting it returns, leaving some ambiguity.

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 specific verb and resource: it queries download/import task status. The read-only note and the state examples (READY / REQUIRES_INST) further clarify the domain. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like metadata search, PDF path, fulltext, and collections.

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 gives clear context: use this when checking download/import task status. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the sibling tool names are sufficiently different in purpose that an agent can route correctly without further guidance.

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