task_status

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read operation, but the description does not state side-effect behavior, required ownership of the task, error conditions, or whether the task must belong to the supplied agent_id. This is a meaningful transparency gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 a single efficient sentence that front-loads the operation and names the key output fields. There is no wasted wording or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 two-parameter status tool, the description names the key returned fields and identifies the resource. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves out parameter semantics, error behavior, and how agent_id scopes the task lookup, so completeness is only moderate.

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 0%, and the description only mentions a 'specific task' without explaining the role of agent_id or the expected format/scope of task_id. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the lack of schema-level detail.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed status of a specific task'), and lists distinguishing fields like missing_tools, partial flag, and timestamps. This clearly separates it from siblings such as agent_status and task_result.

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 is given about when to use this tool versus task_result or agent_status, and no conditions or exclusions are mentioned. The description implies a status lookup but does not help the agent choose between related tools.

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