spatial_task_status

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so no side-effect warnings are needed. The description adds useful detail by specifying the state machine and that the response includes the last log lines, helping an agent understand what a status check returns. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

One concise sentence that front-loads the key output content and enumerates the status vocabulary with zero filler. It is appropriately sized for such a simple tool.

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 one-parameter, read-only status tool, this is largely complete: it names the input domain and the return content (status, message, last log lines). It could be improved by noting where the task id originates or that the status is for an asynchronous task, but these are minor given the sibling naming.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description's phrase 'of a task' is the only clue that the 'id' parameter refers to a task identifier. This adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, but it does not state that the id comes from spatial_run_task or spatial_list_tasks, nor explain behavior for unknown ids.

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 identifies the tool as returning status, message, and log lines for a single task, and enumerates the exact status values (queued/running/success/failed/cancelled). It is distinguishable from siblings like spatial_list_tasks and spatial_run_task, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'get' or 'retrieve'.

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?

Usage is implied: after running a task, this tool reports its status and logs. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus spatial_list_tasks, nor how the task id is obtained from spatial_run_task, and it names no alternative.

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