Get task status / result

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

Without annotations, the description provides basic behavioral info (returns status, result URLs, cost upon completion) but lacks details on intermediate states, error handling, or rate limits. It does not contradict annotations since none exist.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. No superfluous information is present.

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 polling tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but omits details like possible status values, the role of save_to, and whether the tool blocks or returns immediately for incomplete tasks.

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 coverage is 50% with only save_to having a description. The tool description does not explain the purpose of either parameter (task_id or save_to) beyond what the schema already provides, failing to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 clearly states it checks the status of a task started with wait=false and returns status, result URLs, and cost when complete. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like generate_image and list_tasks by specifying the context of asynchronous task polling.

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 explicitly specifies when to use this tool (for tasks started with wait=false), but does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives like list_tasks for listing tasks.

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