get_agent_status

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

The description conveys that this is a read-only retrieval operation and covers both running and completed tasks. However, it does not disclose return format, error behavior, or what happens if the task_id is invalid or not found.

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 concise sentence with a clear verb-object structure and no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simple purpose.

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 tool, the description states the basic purpose but omits what the returned status and output look like. It also does not mention whether this is a polling endpoint or how it relates to launching agent tasks, leaving the caller with limited operational context.

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 task_id parameter is required, but the description gives no explanation of its format, source, or meaning beyond the field name. Since the schema also lacks a description for it, the tool description does nothing to clarify the 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 clearly states the action (fetches), the object (live status and output of an agent task), and the scope (running or completed). This makes the tool's purpose immediately understandable and distinguishes it from task-launching siblings like run_agent_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?

No guidance is given about when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as get_antigravity_agent_report or get_bridge_history. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or typical usage scenarios mentioned.

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