get_task_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. The minimal description 'Get the status of a task' does not disclose whether it is read-only, what permissions are needed, if it has side effects, or what the response format is. The behavioral traits are largely undisclosed.

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 with no wasted words. It is concise and front-loaded. However, it might be too terse given the lack of detail, but it earns a 4 for efficient use of language.

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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context such as possible status values or return format. It fails to do so, making it incomplete for a tool that returns status. The tool is simple but still lacking essential contextual details.

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 covers 100% of parameters with a description for 'taskId' as 'Task ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already documents the parameter sufficiently.

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 'Get the status of a task' clearly states the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_tasks' (which lists tasks) and 'cancel_task' (which cancels), but does not explicitly differentiate from 'get_task_log' which retrieves logs, not status. The purpose is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions. There is no mention of when to use 'get_task_status' instead of related tools like 'get_task_log' or 'list_tasks'.

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