get_task_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the return structure (JSON with status, progress, and optionally result), the effect of include_result, and provides an example. It does not cover edge cases like unknown task_id or potential errors, but for a read-only status tool, the disclosure is sufficient.

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 appropriately structured into Args, Returns, and an Example. It is concise, with no redundant phrases, and every sentence provides useful information for selecting and invoking the tool.

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, and an output schema exists, so the description need not detail return types. The example clarifies the progress structure. The main gap is not listing possible status values, but this is not essential for selection or invocation. Overall, the description is complete enough.

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%, so the description must explain parameters. It does so fully: task_id is identified as the ID from an async operation, and include_result is described with its condition for including the result. This adds meaning well beyond the bare schema field names.

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 specifies the action ('Get'), the resource ('status and progress of a background task'), and focuses on a single task, distinguishing it from siblings like list_tasks and cancel_task. The verb+resource combination makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage by referencing 'task ID returned by an async operation', which tells an agent when to poll for status. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over list_tasks or cancel_task, nor mention any exclusion criteria. The context is clear but not fully prescriptive.

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