Get image merge status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates that this is a status-checking/read operation that returns the image URL only once the asynchronous merge is ready. It could add detail on in-progress or failed states, but the core async behavior is disclosed.

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 first sentence is compact, front-loaded, and informative. The second sentence adds a website URL that is not directly useful for invoking the tool correctly, so the description is not perfectly economical, but it remains short and clear.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description needs to cover the return behavior. It explains that the image URL is returned when ready, but it does not describe what the tool returns for pending or failed tasks, which is important for an agent trying to poll or handle errors.

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%, and the schema already explains that taskId is the id returned by merge_images. The description does not add meaningful new semantics beyond that, so the baseline score 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 uses a specific verb ('Check'), names the resource ('status of an image merge task'), and ties the task to merge_images. It clearly distinguishes this polling tool from the creation-oriented sibling merge_images.

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 phrase 'created by merge_images' makes clear that merge_images must be called first, and 'when it is ready' implies polling behavior. However, it does not explicitly say 'use this tool after merge_images to poll until ready' or mention when not to use it.

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