get_volume_task_status

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

Annotations already communicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safe, repeatable nature is covered. The description adds that this is an async status-polling endpoint, but it does not disclose what the response contains or whether the task status may be pending/failed/successful, which would add value beyond the annotations.

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 fully communicates the tool's role and parameter source with no redundant words. It earns its place and remains easy to scan.

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 polling endpoint, this is usable but not complete: with no output schema, the description should hint at the kind of status values the agent can expect or note that the response reflects an async operation's progress. Missing that leaves agents guessing about the response shape and possible outcome states.

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?

Although schema coverage is 0%, the description clarifies the only parameter's meaning and origin: task_id is the ID returned by the async volume calls. This goes beyond the bare 'Task Id' string property name, satisfying the required compensation for low schema coverage.

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 a specific verb ('check the status') and a specific resource ('async volume operation') and enumerates the relevant operations. It clearly distinguishes this polling tool from the many direct volume and VPS action tools in the sibling list.

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 context is implied: this is for checking an async operation's status using the task_id returned by those calls. However, it does not explicitly say when NOT to use it, nor does it point to alternatives like get_volume for finished-state reads, so the guidance is adequate but not thorough.

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