task_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully explains behavior: it is read-only, reads the fleet Postgres queue, returns a task row with specified fields, and returns a not_found error for unknown task IDs. This discloses the error case and polling semantics, exceeding minimal requirements.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every clause adds useful information. No wasted words.

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, and the description covers the input context (task submitted via task_submit), the output shape (task row with status, result, submitted_by, timestamps), and the edge case. Given no output schema, this is sufficient for an agent to use 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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the app_id parameter at all; it only indirectly clarifies task_id through the not_found mention. An agent would not know what app_id represents or how it relates to task_submit.

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 states the tool polls a single task submitted via task_submit, with a specific verb ('poll') and resource ('task'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like task_list by focusing on a single task_id. The return fields are listed.

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 provides clear context: use after submitting a task via task_submit and poll until complete. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the sibling context and single-task scope make the intended usage clear.

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