Get Semantic Model Task Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, making the safe read nature clear. The description adds the semantic-model context and example but does not disclose return format, polling behavior, or how to interpret statuses. Adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The example adds helpful specificity without bloat, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 status-polling tool with one documented parameter and strong annotations, the description is mostly sufficient. However, it does not mention that task_id is typically returned by task-creation tools, and the absence of an output schema leaves the response format unspecified. Slightly under-specified.

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 fully documents the only parameter (task_id as 'Task id to poll'), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states 'Get the status of a semantic-model background task' with a concrete example ('save_documentation_task'). This clearly identifies the tool's action and resource, distinguishing it from generic task 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the generic `lyzr_get_task_status` or other domain-specific status tools. The example implies it is for semantic-model tasks, but there are no exclusions or alternatives mentioned.

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