benchmark_task_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Show... status' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explain what status information is returned, how task is identified, or whether it polls or returns a snapshot.

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 short and front-loaded, with no filler words. However, it is under-specified to the point that the single sentence does not provide enough actionable content for a tool with an undocumented required parameter.

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 a one-parameter status tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least mention what the response represents and what input is expected. It currently only states the bare function, leaving an agent to guess at semantics.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage and the sole 'task' parameter is left unexplained. The description adds no information about the expected format, identifier type, or how to obtain a valid task value.

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 concrete verb ('show') and names the exact resource ('benchmark task status'), making it clear this is a status lookup for a single benchmark task. It is not as strong as a 5 because it doesn't explicitly contrast with list_benchmark_tasks, but the resource is specific enough to differentiate at a glance.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus list_benchmark_tasks or the sibling status tools. An agent gets no context about prerequisites (e.g., a running task ID) or situations where another tool would be more appropriate.

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