Get Knowledge Graph Task Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond 'poll', such as the fact it's for async KG tasks, but does not describe return format, polling intervals, or status meanings. With annotations carrying the burden, this is adequate but not enriched.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and resource. No wasted words, perfectly concise.

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 single-parameter polling tool with strong annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not explain what statuses might be returned, how to handle the response, or which types of KG async tasks it applies to (e.g., training, deduplication). There is no output schema, so the description could have provided more context but does not.

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 coverage is 100% with 'task_id' described as 'Async task id'. The description does not add additional meaning to the parameter beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already fully documents the only parameter.

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 'Poll the status of an async knowledge graph task' clearly states the verb (poll), the resource (knowledge graph task), and the async scope. It distinguishes this from generic status tools like 'lyzr_get_task_status' by specifying 'knowledge graph task'.

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 after launching an async KG task, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'lyzr_get_task_status' or 'lyzr_get_chat_task_status'. There is no when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives, so it earns a 3 for implied usage.

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