Get Chat Task Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's safety burden is lower. It adds the context that this is a polling operation and that it returns both status and result, but it doesn't elaborate on response specifics or edge cases. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

A single concise sentence that front-loads the action and states the companion tool. No filler or redundant repetition of schema information.

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 simple polling tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow (submit then poll) and the purpose. It doesn't detail the response format, but the title and description together provide sufficient context for correct usage.

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 describes task_id only as 'The chat task id', but the description adds valuable provenance by specifying that the task was submitted via lyzr_submit_chat_task. This helps the agent correctly source the id, exceeding what the schema alone provides.

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 action ('Poll') and the specific resource ('status/result of a chat task'), explicitly linking it to the companion tool lyzr_submit_chat_task. This distinguishes it from other status tools like lyzr_get_task_status.

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 specifies when to use this tool: after submitting a chat task via lyzr_submit_chat_task. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to understand the intended workflow.

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