get_task

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

The word 'Fetch' implies a read-only operation, and 'current status' suggests it may return incomplete or in-progress states. However, with no annotations, the description does not disclose error behavior, whether it modifies anything, or any authentication needs. It is minimally transparent but not misleading.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. Every word adds value, clearly stating the action and the resource.

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 relatively simple with two parameters and no output schema. The description covers the main purpose and even mentions 'latest result payload,' but it does not explain possible status values, polling behavior, or error conditions, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the input schema with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, 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 uses the specific verb 'Fetch' with the resource 'current status and latest result payload for a grok-imagine task.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that create or edit tasks, making its purpose immediately obvious.

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?

Usage is implied through the name and description; it is for retrieving task status, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it, how to poll, or which alternatives to avoid. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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