medeval_get_task_progress

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description carries a low burden here. It adds modest value beyond the annotations with 'lightweight' (cheap/fast) and 'live' (near-real-time snapshot), which are useful behavioral cues not present in structured data. No mention of rate limits or auth, but that is acceptable given the annotations already disclose the operation is safe and non-mutating.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler. The verb and primary benefit ('without resubmitting') are front-loaded, and every word earns its place. This is exemplary conciseness.

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 is simple (one self-evident parameter), annotated for safety, and has an output schema covering the return shape, so the description need not explain results. The main gap is the missing distinction from medeval_get_generation_task and the unspecified provenance of task_id. Adequate but not complete for a tool whose key ambiguity lies in its siblings.

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%, putting the burden on the description to explain the task_id parameter, but the description says nothing about it. The parameter is self-explanatory by name, and the output schema exists, so some effort is spared, but the description should at least note that task_id is the identifier returned by a submission tool like medeval_start_generation. It does not compensate for the zero-coverage 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 ('Read') and resource ('lightweight live status snapshot' / task progress), which is consistent with the readOnlyHint=true annotation. The phrase 'without resubmitting the task' hints at contrast with submission-oriented siblings like medeval_start_generation and medeval_start_evaluation. However, it does not distinguish itself from the closely-named medeval_get_generation_task, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool.

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 phrase 'without resubmitting the task' implies the tool is for checking on an already-submitted task rather than re-triggering one, which is a weak contextual signal. But it names no alternative tool, gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, and fails to clarify when to pick this over medeval_get_generation_task or medeval_get_run. Usage context is left to inference.

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