Get a NexusAPI task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and the mention of 'status, result or error' hints at varying response states. However, it does not explicitly state non-destructive behavior, prerequisites (beyond task_id), error handling for invalid IDs, or whether the operation might block. This is adequate but not rich.

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 description is a single sentence, 11 words, that front-loads the action ('Get') and specifies what is retrieved. Every word contributes meaning; there is no fluff or redundancy. This is a model of conciseness.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description sufficiently explains the purpose and return types (status, result, error). It could benefit from explicitly stating the expected usage flow (e.g., 'call after nexusapi_generate'), but given the simplicity and sibling list, it is nearly 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 100%: task_id is described as 'Task id returned by nexusapi_generate,' which already provides clear semantics. The tool description adds no additional parameter context beyond referencing 'previously created task.' Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a 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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the specific resource: 'status, result or error of a previously created NexusAPI generation task.' It directly distinguishes this from sibling tools like nexusapi_generate (which creates) and nexusapi_list_models/get_model_schema (which list models). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 'previously created NexusAPI generation task' implies usage after calling nexusapi_generate, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, such as checking other task-related endpoints or using list_models for model info. Still, the sequencing is well implied.

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