zahadun_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns either a result or a status, implying it can be used before task completion, but it does not detail response shape, error handling, or whether it blocks.

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 clauses; every word contributes. It avoids redundancy and front-loads the core purpose.

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 low complexity (one parameter, output schema present), and the description covers purpose, id formatting, and its link to zahadun_ask. It lacks explicit usage timing beyond that, but with an output schema available, return values need not be described.

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?

The schema only defines `id` as a required string; the description adds crucial format semantics ('peer:taskId') and provenance, fully compensating for the 0% schema coverage for this single parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Odbior' = retrieval) and resource ('wyniku lub statusu zadania' = result/status of a task), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like zahadun_ask (submission) and zahadun_peers (peer listing).

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 explicitly states that the `id` is in 'peer:taskId' format 'as returned by zahadun_ask', which ties its usage to a specific workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or mention polling/waiting behavior.

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