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. It discloses the non-mutating nature via the verb 'fetch' and scopes to gpt-image tasks, but does not mention expected behaviors like polling intervals, error handling, or that the task might still be processing. This is acceptable but not rich.

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 sentence that is direct and free of unnecessary wording. It front-loads the core purpose and earns its place without redundancy.

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 fetch tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description conveys the primary function but omits details about what the status values might be or whether the result payload is always present. This is a minor gap given the low complexity.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions for task_id and action. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, but the schema already provides clear semantics for both parameters, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 fetches the current status and latest result payload for a gpt-image task. The verb 'fetch' and specific resource ('status and latest result payload') distinguish it from sibling creation tools like edit_image and text_to_image.

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 the tool is used to poll an asynchronous gpt-image task for its status/result, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The context of siblings suggests it is the retrieval counterpart to the creation endpoints, but this is not made explicit.

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