Get durable task status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden, and it does well: it reveals that calls are repeated, that the operation is a poll, and that terminal states are 'completed' or 'failed'. It does not discuss rate limits or invalid task behaviors, but the read-only polling behavior is clear.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the polling instruction. Every word contributes; there is no filler, repetition, or schema duplication.

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 single-parameter, low-complexity polling tool, the description is sufficient: it identifies the object, the parameter context, and the termination condition. It does not specify the exact response payload, but the absence of an output schema and the simple status check make that a minor gap.

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 no schema description and the body text never explicitly mentions taskId, but the phrase 'task created by this server' clarifies that the sole parameter refers to a server-issued task identifier. The property name and type are self-explanatory, though the description could have added where the ID comes from.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Poll') and a concrete resource ('a long-running task created by this server'), and the title names the resource as 'durable task status'. This makes the tool clearly distinct from siblings like durable_task_cancel and durable_task_respond without needing to inspect them.

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?

It states when to use the tool (for long-running tasks created by this server) and gives an explicit polling pattern ('Repeat until status is completed or failed'). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the get/cancel/respond naming makes the intended use obvious; no exclusion cases are stated.

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