retrieve_rigging_task

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses only that a status is returned. It does not say whether the call is read-only and side-effect free (implied only by "retrieve"), what happens for an unknown or expired task_id, or what the possible status values are.

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 short sentence with no waste, but its brevity is under-specification rather than efficient packing — the one sentence is the entire definition. Front-loaded and parseable, so not a 2.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the return value (e.g., status field and terminal states). It does not, leaving the agent unable to interpret a result or know how to poll, which is inadequate for a task-status tool.

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 0% and the sole parameter task_id has no type context, format, or provenance in the description. It does not tell the agent where the task_id comes from (the create_rigging_task response) or how it is validated.

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 and resource ("Retrieve the status of a rigging task"), which is clearly distinct from create_rigging_task, list_rigging_tasks and stream_rigging_task by the name pattern. It does not explicitly name those siblings or explain the retrieve-vs-list/stream distinction, so it falls short of a 5.

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 on when to use this versus list_rigging_tasks or stream_rigging_task, and no mention of polling, wait/retry behavior, or prerequisites such as needing a task_id from create_rigging_task. The agent must infer the entire usage context from the name.

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