task_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond basic get/update by explicitly stating supported transitions ('pending->running, running->completed/failed') and the side effect of firing a webhook when reaching a terminal state. This is valuable context about mutating behavior and timing of side effects, though it doesn't cover permissions or reversibility.

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 two sentences, both front-loaded with the core purpose. The first sentence states the action, and the second adds behavioral constraints. No fluff or redundancy; 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 tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: purpose, transitions, and webhook side effect. It doesn't explicitly describe the return shape, but the get/update nature implies a return of status. Given the moderate complexity and existing schema coverage, it is reasonably complete, though it could mention pagination or response details for full completeness.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the allowed transition sequence (pending->running, running->completed/failed) and linking the 'result' parameter to terminal states. This clarifies the semantics of 'update_status' and 'result' better than the raw schema alone.

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 states the tool's dual purpose: 'Get the current status of an async task, or update its status.' This is a specific verb+resource pairing that distinguishes it from sibling tools like task_create, which creates tasks. The name 'task_status' aligns perfectly with the described functionality.

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 in the context of async task management by defining status transitions and the webhook side effect. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the sibling list includes task_create, making it clear this tool is for checking/updating existing tasks. The context is sufficiently clear, though it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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