Get task status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Fetch' implies a safe read and the listed fields give useful insight into the response shape (compensating for the absent output schema), but there is no disclosure of behavior on missing/expired tasks, permissions, or whether state is a live poll or cached snapshot.

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 compact sentence with the return contents front-loaded after the verb. No wasted words, though it is a fragment and could carry one more clause of routing or input guidance at little cost.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description partially compensates by naming the record fields, which is valuable. However, it leaves the required taskId unexplained and gives no usage context, so it is only minimally adequate for correct invocation.

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 single required parameter taskId is undocumented in both the schema and the description. The description never mentions the identifier, its expected format, or how to obtain it, leaving the only input fully unexplained.

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 (fetch) and resource (task record) and enumerates the record's contents (state, steps, outcome, pending confirmation). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like computer_execute_task or computer_cancel_task.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., where a valid taskId comes from), and no mention of alternatives such as computer_get_state or computer_step. The agent must infer all routing context from the name alone.

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