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 full burden of behavioral transparency. It only states that it gets a status, which implies a read operation, but does not mention potential errors, whether the task must be actively running, or any side effects. The term 'running task' is left undefined.

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 a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and object. Every word contributes to the core meaning, with no redundant or filler content.

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 (2 parameters, no nested objects), but with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what 'status' means, how the response is structured, or any related constraints. It does not, leaving the agent with insufficient context to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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% for both parameters, with clear descriptions ('Node where task is running' and 'Task ID'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 clearly uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('status of a running task'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling status tools like get_node_status or get_iso_download_status, leaving some ambiguity about what 'task' specifically refers to.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes many status-related tools, but the description offers no exclusions, prerequisites, or context that would help an agent choose this tool appropriately.

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