kling_get_task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — it doesn't mention that the task must be polled, what states are returned (processing/completed/failed), or how an invalid task_id behaves.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its terseness contributes to the missing behavioral detail.

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 an async status-check tool with no output schema, the description should ideally explain what status values come back or whether polling is required. Annotations and the complete schema cover safety and inputs, but the return-side semantics are left unstated.

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%; both api_key and task_id are documented, and task_id even notes it comes from kling_generate_video. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable at full coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('Check the status') and a specific resource ('a Kling AI video generation task'), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It stops short of contrasting itself with siblings like kling_generate_video or runway_get_task, but the verb+resource pair is clear.

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 by 'Check the status of a ... task' — a reasonable agent infers this is the follow-up poll to a generation call. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of polling behavior, and no exclusion of alternatives for other video providers.

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