task_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return states (queued, running, success, failed), which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving gaps for a status-checking tool.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and adds return details in the second, with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter and clear functionality.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity, one parameter, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose and basic behavior, but could improve by adding more usage context or error details to fully compensate for the lack of annotations.

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%, so the schema already documents the 'taskId' parameter fully. The description adds minimal value by referencing 'taskId from a previous generation or post-processing call', but this does not significantly enhance the schema's information, meeting the baseline for high 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 clearly states the specific verb ('check') and resource ('status of an async 3D generation or post-processing task'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on status monitoring rather than creation or transformation tasks like 'image_to_3d' or 'stylize'.

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 description implies usage by mentioning 'taskId from a previous generation or post-processing call', suggesting it should be used after initiating such tasks. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions, leaving some ambiguity.

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