task_status

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden and discloses important non-obvious behavior: resolution by task id or unique prefix, fallback to a client-side external_id scan, and the reason for that fallback. This gives the agent accurate expectations.

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 three sentences with no filler. Each sentence adds functional value: the endpoint, the lookup strategy, and the return format.

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?

Given the single parameter, presence of an output schema, and absence of annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the lookup method, fallback behavior, and return representation without needing to describe output schema fields.

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 input schema provides only the parameter name and type with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description compensates fully by explaining that the parameter accepts a task id, unique id prefix, or external_id and by detailing the resolution order.

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 tool fetches a task's full current state via a specific endpoint. It uses a precise verb and resource, and the read-oriented purpose distinguishes it from the sibling task_add.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool: whenever a task's current state is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use is evident.

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