h3_art_job_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It clarifies one return-field semantic (processing_seconds is task time, not clip length), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about the status values returned, whether results expire, or what happens for unknown task_ids.

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, with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. It is terse to the point that important context (task_id origin, sibling choice) was dropped rather than trimmed.

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 polling tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required parameter, the description leaves the agent without the status model or the task_id source. The processing_seconds note is a helpful fragment but not enough to call this complete.

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 0%, so the single parameter task_id is completely undocumented in both the schema and the description. The description never says what a task_id looks like or that it comes from the generate tools, leaving the one required input unexplained.

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 verb 'Check' plus the resource 'managed H3 task status' is specific, and 'any' signals broad applicability. The word 'managed' hints at a distinction from the sibling h3_job_status, but the difference is never made explicit, so an agent still has to guess between the two.

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?

There is no statement of when to poll, how often, or whether to use h3_job_status instead. The only usage signal is implicit in 'task status', leaving the agent to infer that this follows h3_art_generate or h3_art_generate_workflow.

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