Get Task Status

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the returned content, including recovery attempts and recent events, and the includeEvents parameter implies an event log. However, it never states that the call is read-only with no side effects, nor anything about cost, pagination, or permissions.

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 a colon-delimited field list; zero filler and every phrase conveys information. Ideal density for a simple retrieval tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description's enumeration of returned fields is valuable, and no annotations mean behavior must be inferred from 'Get'. But the required taskId and the includeEvents toggle are left unexplained, so an agent cannot fully understand the call contract from the text alone.

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 50%: includeEvents has a description and a default, but taskId is undocumented in both schema and description. The description mentions neither parameter, so it adds no meaning over the structured fields and fails to compensate for the undocumented required taskId.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('task status'), then enumerates the fields returned (state, progress, checkpoint, recovery attempts, recent events). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which are all mutation/reporting operations (register_task, report_progress, save_checkpoint, etc.), though it never names them.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is the read-only status lookup among write-oriented siblings, but the description never says when to call it, whether polling is expected, or what alternatives exist. Minimum viable guidance, no exclusions.

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