get_task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds important async behavior: those operations answer before completion. It discloses the polling requirement and the relevant result fields (`finished`, `succeeded`), which is exactly what an agent needs for a job-status tool.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then efficiently adds async context, polling instructions, and a warning. Every sentence contributes to correct invocation, and there is no redundant or filler text.

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 read-only polling tool with one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description supplies the missing return semantics by naming `finished` and `succeeded`. It also explains the broader workflow that necessitates polling, making the definition complete enough to invoke correctly.

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 `task_id` parameter is already documented in the schema, including an example link to `undo_transaction` or `verify_tree`. The description does not add new syntax, format, or constraint details beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: check whether a background job has finished and whether it worked. It distinguishes this from sibling operations by explaining that get_task retrieves the result of dispatched async work, not the work itself.

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?

It explicitly names the operations that require polling: undo, verification, import, and reindex. It then gives concrete usage instructions: poll until `finished` is true, then read `succeeded`, and warns against submitting such operations without checking the result.

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