task_status

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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, the description adds useful context beyond the annotations: it states that the tool does not switch or change the current task, that gate warnings always concern the actual current task, and that there is no source-cache scan. It does not describe pagination, output format, or limits, but the added behavioral context is meaningful.

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 three tight sentences with no filler. The primary behavior is front-loaded, followed by the sibling alternative and the read-only constraint, so every sentence 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 read-only status tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers default behavior, id-based inspection, task-switching constraint, gate warnings, and the sibling alternative. The only minor gap is that it does not detail what the default 'quick current-task summary' contains.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the single id parameter. The description still adds value by explaining that passing id inspects a Passport with objective, constraints, all next actions, and verification, and that omitting id yields the legacy current-task summary, which goes beyond the schema's wording.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Print a quick current-task summary' or 'inspect a selected Passport.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from task_audit by stating 'No source-cache scan; use task_audit for the full continuity audit,' and it separates the default summary from the id-based Passport inspection.

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 names task_audit as the explicit alternative for a full continuity audit and explains that passing id inspects a Passport 'without switching tasks,' which gives clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not enumerate other when-not conditions or fully contrast with siblings like task_list.

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