stata_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 of behavioral disclosure. It does this well by specifying the three possible return states (running, done with result text, error) and the failure behavior for an unknown job_id (rc=1). This gives the agent concrete expectations beyond just 'query status.' It does not cover every edge case, but the disclosed behavior is meaningful and non-obvious.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose, lists all relevant status outcomes, and includes the key error condition. Every element earns its place, and there is no redundant 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?

For a simple one-parameter status-check tool with no output schema, the description is notably complete: it covers the states, the result-text behavior, and the error behavior. Combined with the schema's explanation of job_id's origin, an agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly and interpret likely outcomes.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself does not add much parameter-level meaning, but the schema already describes job_id as a global id returned by stata_run(background=True). The description and schema together fully clarify the single parameter's meaning.

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 ('查询' / query) and a specific resource ('后台任务' / background task), and enumerates the possible statuses: running, done (with result text), and error. It clearly identifies the tool's purpose, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like stata_get_results.

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 implicitly indicates when to use the tool: when checking the status of a background task. The parameter schema adds the key context that job_id comes from stata_run(background=True) and is global, which helps the agent choose this tool for post-run status checks. However, there is no explicit 'use this instead of...' guidance or exclusions relative to siblings such as stata_get_results.

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