get_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the response shape at a high level (status plus latest result payload), which hints that results may be partial. However, it says nothing about behavior when the task is still pending, error cases, or any auth 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?

A single efficient sentence with the key information front-loaded and no filler. It is arguably undersized for a polling tool with state-dependent behavior, but there is no wasted text.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must cover the polling semantics the agent needs. It identifies what is returned but omits pending/retry behavior and error handling, leaving meaningful gaps for a task-status tool.

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 description coverage is 100%: both task_id and the action enum are documented directly in the schema, including the meaning of the enum values. The description adds no additional parameter meaning (e.g. where task_id comes from), so the baseline 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 names a specific verb (fetch) and resource (task status and latest result payload), so it is immediately distinguishable from the sibling endpoints (isolate_audio, speech_to_text, etc.) which create tasks rather than read them. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, 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?

There is no guidance on when to call this tool: nothing states that it is the polling endpoint to use after creating an async task, nor how to handle non-terminal states or how often to poll. The agent must infer the entire usage pattern from the resource name alone.

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