get_task

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals the polling behavior, the maximum wait time, and the need to re-invoke for long-running jobs. It does not specify error or timeout behavior, but the core polling semantics are clearly disclosed.

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?

Three tightly worded sentences, each adding distinct information: the action and id constraint, the polling parameter, and the retry recommendation. No filler or redundant wording.

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?

The description covers the essential invocation details: what identifier to use, how polling works, and what to do if the generation is not done. It does not describe the return payload, but there is no output schema and the retry guidance implies what an agent needs to know. 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?

The schema already covers both parameters at 100%, providing name and description for each. The description adds meaningful context: id is a task id, not an assetId, and waitSeconds controls polling until a terminal state. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 starts with a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('a generation'), and immediately disambiguates the identifier type ('not an upload assetId'). This makes the tool's purpose clear and distinguishes it from sibling tools that may operate on different resource identifiers.

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?

It gives clear operational guidance: waitSeconds is optional, caps at 60, and jobs may require repeated calls with the same id until terminal. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when to use a sibling tool, but the assetId exclusion plus retry instructions provide solid context.

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