Get duplication task status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the tool's safety profile is covered. The description adds no further behavioral details (e.g., polling semantics, task lifecycle). While minimal, this meets the baseline for simple getter with good annotation coverage.

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, clear sentence with no extraneous words. Perfectly front-loaded and appropriately brief for a simple getter.

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 simple tool with one parameter, comprehensive annotations, and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It lacks details about return format or error cases, but these are not required given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema. A minor deduction because it doesn't reference the asynchronous nature of duplication tasks, but this is not critical.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single taskId parameter. The description does not mention parameters at all, relying entirely on the schema. Per guidelines, with high coverage, baseline is 3, and no extra value is added here.

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 'Gets the status of a collection duplication task' uses a specific verb ('Gets') and identifies the exact resource ('status of a collection duplication task'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like 'duplicateCollection' and other getters, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description implies usage for checking status after duplication, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any preconditions. There's no direct guidance on when not to use it, but the context of sibling tools suggests this is a status-checking operation. This aligns with 'implied usage' (score 3).

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