get_task_status

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does indicate a read-style behavior ('查询') and discloses the output (status and recent logs), but it does not mention error behavior, log size limits, or whether any side effects occur.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to defining the tool's purpose.

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 simple read tool with two well-documented parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, without annotations or an output schema, it could have clarified what status values are returned and how logs are formatted, and it gives no usage context relative to sibling tools.

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%, so the schema already documents both task_id and include_logs. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter formats, defaults, or how include_logs affects output.

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 '查询' (query) and names the exact resource ('指定任务' / specified task) and what it returns (current status and recent logs). It is clear, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_task_result or list_tasks.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_task_result, list_tasks, or dispatch_task. The description states only what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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