Get Cache Task Status

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds value by detailing the return structure (fields like status, progress, error) and the error case (ValueError for missing task_id), which goes beyond 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?

The description is front-loaded with purpose and uses clear sections (Args, Returns, Raises). It is slightly verbose due to the detailed Returns list, but every sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise without losing information.

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?

Given the simple tool (one required parameter) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter, return structure, and error handling thoroughly. No gaps are apparent.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must fully explain parameters. It describes task_id as 'the unique identifier for the cache task', adding meaning beyond the schema's simple type definition. The single parameter is well-described.

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 clearly specifies the verb 'Get status' and the resource 'background cache task'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like cache_task_list (which lists all tasks) and cache_get_stats (which likely returns aggregate stats) by focusing on a single task's status.

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 notes the tool is 'read-only, safe for unsupervised use' and implies it should be used to check status of a specific background cache task. However, it does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like cache_task_list or when not to use this tool.

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