get_task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior — that returned URLs are signed and time-limited — which is exactly the kind of trait annotations cannot express. It leaves the idempotentHint=false distinction (repeated calls may return different progress/URLs) unexplained, which is a minor gap.

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 sentences, zero filler. The return payload is front-loaded and the expiry caveat with its remediation follows immediately, which is the correct ordering for an agent deciding whether to act on the URLs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the expiry warning is the one behavioral fact an agent must have. The only omission is guidance on polling/waiting relative to wait_for_task, which matters for a long-running task-status tool.

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 a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents task_id as 'Task ID returned by a task-creating tool'. The description adds no format, source, or validation detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 for a fully-covered schema 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a Tripo task's status, progress, outputs and error'), enumerating exactly what the call returns rather than restating the name. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the plural sibling get_tasks and routes the agent to download_task, so an agent can place it without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear conditional routing: output URLs are signed and expire, so use download_task to save them. It does not, however, mention when to prefer wait_for_task for polling versus calling get_task repeatedly, which is the other obvious alternative in this sibling set.

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