cdn_task_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the possible return statuses (fail/done/process) and the two query modes, which is useful. However, it does not describe the output shape, behavior for unknown task IDs, or ordering/limiting behavior beyond the schema default.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the action, status vocabulary, and both invocation modes. Every phrase adds useful information, with no redundancy or filler.

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 status-query tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the core invocation choices and return status semantics. Combined with the fully documented input schema and the related cdn_refresh sibling, the agent has enough context to select and invoke the tool 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 already describes both parameters completely, including the default for limit and the taskId behavior when left blank (100% schema coverage). The description does not add additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema states, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: querying the status of Tencent Cloud CDN refresh tasks, and enumerates the possible status values (fail/done/process). This clearly identifies the action and distinguishes it from related tools like cdn_refresh, which creates tasks. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 gives clear usage context: query by task ID or query recent records. The schema further clarifies that taskId comes from cdn_refresh and that leaving it blank returns recent records. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but no sibling offers equivalent status-checking functionality, so the guidance is sufficient.

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