get_tool_task_status

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only. The description adds value by clarifying this is for polling asynchronous tasks that returned queued/running and that it returns status and artifacts. It does not describe the output structure in detail, but the mention of 'status and artifacts' provides a helpful overview beyond the annotation.

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: the first states the purpose, the second states when to use it. There is no filler or redundancy, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

Given the one-parameter input, read-only annotation, and no output schema, the description covers the essential usage scenario well. The mention of 'status and artifacts' gives a sufficient sense of the return value, though it does not go into error cases or polling 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?

The schema fully describes the single parameter 'toolTaskId' with the same source context ('returned by generate_image or generate_video'). The description repeats that context but does not add further parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb 'Check' and names the resource 'UGCmind Tool Runtime task' along with what is checked: 'latest status and artifacts'. It clearly differentiates from sibling generation tools by framing this as the follow-up status check.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this after generate_image/generate_video returns queued or running.' This provides a clear trigger condition. However, it does not mention alternatives or situations to avoid, so it does not earn a 5.

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