gemini_agent_status

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds genuinely new context: tasks survive MCP reconnection, errors are structured with failure_reason, retryable, and error_id, and partial output is explicitly flagged as incomplete with recovery guidance. It stops short of describing status field values or how long completed tasks remain queryable.

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?

Dense and front-loaded — the read action and its payload come first, behavioral notes after. The final clause about recording the agent report and independently checking files is terse to the point of being slightly cryptic, but no sentence is 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?

With no output schema and no annotation detail on returns, the description must describe what comes back, and it does: status, progress events, changed files, exit codes, structured error fields, and final report. The main remaining gap is the set of possible status values and how 'completed' differs from 'failed' operationally.

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?

One required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden. It conveys that the lookup is keyed to a durable task, which makes task_id largely self-explanatory, but it never states the id's origin (returned by gemini_spawn_agent / gemini_agent_submit) or the failure mode for an unknown id.

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?

States a specific verb (read) and a well-scoped resource (durable task status), then enumerates the payload: progress events, changed files, exit codes, failure/final report. An agent can tell it is a status-reader rather than a spawner or interrupter, though it never names a sibling (e.g. gemini_wait_agent or gemini_list_agents) to sharpen the boundary.

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?

Usage is only implied: you call it to poll a task by id, and the closing line hints at post-completion verification. There is no explicit statement of when to poll this versus gemini_wait_agent (blocking wait) or gemini_list_agents (discovery), so the agent must infer the routing.

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