Get mockup task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds real value by describing the response shape (result.mockups holds image URLs when completed) and the polling behavior. It doesn't mention failure/error states or timing expectations for the wait, which keeps it below the top mark.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, success return shape, and pending behavior. The most actionable information is front-loaded with zero 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, the description does the work of explaining the completed-state return value and the pending-state loop, which is what an agent most needs. Missing only error/failed-status handling and any sense of polling cadence to be fully complete.

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?

There is one required parameter, task_key, with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden and doesn't explain where the key comes from (presumably create_mockup_task) or its format. The implicit context of 'a mockup generation task' gives partial meaning, but this is the weakest area.

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 and resource: 'Read a mockup generation task.' An agent can distinguish it from create_mockup_task by the name and the read framing. It does not explicitly name the sibling that produces the task_key, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives clear conditional guidance: if status is pending, wait and call again. That is a concrete polling instruction rather than vague context. It doesn't state that this is the follow-up to create_mockup_task or what to do on a failed status, so the usage picture is incomplete at the edges.

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