get_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Fetch' indicates a read-only operation, which is transparent about its side effects. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if the task is incomplete or invalid, leaving some gaps.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. It communicates the core function efficiently, though it contains a minor grammatical error ('a elevenlabs'). Overall, it is concise and well-structured.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description is moderately complete but leaves questions about return format and error handling. It clearly states what is fetched, but does not explain the structure of the result payload or status values, which is important for an agent to interpret the response 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 schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (task_id and action) already documented. The description adds no extra parameter insights, so the baseline of 3 applies. It does not clarify relationships between parameters or provide usage examples.

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 clearly identifies the resource ('current status and latest result payload for a ElevenLabs task'). It distinguishes itself from sibling action tools (isolate_audio, text_to_speech, etc.) which are async endpoints that create tasks, whereas this retrieves task 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 implies usage as a polling mechanism for tasks started on async endpoints, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks explicit guidance such as 'use this after initiating an async task' or mentions of when not to use it.

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