Get task status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it refreshes the status from the provider (implying a network call) and returns progress counts. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand side effects and latency.

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?

Two sentences with no waste. The first sentence states the core action and the refresh behavior; the second states the return value and usage. Key information is front-loaded, and every clause earns its place.

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 tool is simple with one parameter, and the output schema is present, so return values are already documented. The description covers the refresh behavior and the polling use case. It doesn't mention error cases (e.g., task not found), but for a read-only, idempotent tool this is a minor gap. Overall it is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, with a clear description for task_id referencing list_tasks or create_* results. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description does not need to restate what the schema already explains.

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 'Fetch' and resource 'one task', clearly distinguishing it from list_tasks (which returns many tasks). It also mentions refreshing status, which sets it apart from a simple cache read. Siblings like get_task_links are clearly different, so an agent can select this tool without ambiguity.

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 provides an explicit usage context: 'Poll this after creating a task.' This tells the agent when to use it. It doesn't name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'one task' scope and the presence of siblings like list_tasks make the intended usage clear. Slight deduction for not explicitly stating when not to use it (e.g., for listing).

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