safe_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states what the tool does not expose (sensitive content), indicating it is a safe, read-only operation. However, it does not describe error handling or response format, but given the tool's simplicity and safety focus, it is transparent enough.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and constraints. Every sentence adds value with zero waste. Exceptionally concise while being informative.

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 has no output schema, so the description should explain the return value. It mentions 'minimal task lifecycle status' but does not specify what status values look like (e.g., states like pending, completed, failed). For a minimal tool, this is a slight gap, but it aligns with the 'minimal' theme. Could be improved with brief enumeration.

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% (task_id described as 'Task ID to check'). The description adds no further parameter details, so baseline of 3 applies. No additional semantics are provided beyond the schema.

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?

Description explicitly states the verb 'return' and resource 'minimal task lifecycle status', and specifies what is excluded (diff, log, file contents, sensitive paths). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_task_status or safe_audit which may expose more content.

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?

Directly advises when to use: 'when only task state is needed and content-bearing tools may be blocked by upper-layer security'. This also implies when not to use (when content is needed), and references alternative tool categories.

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