get_task

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Fetch' clearly indicates a read operation, and it mentions the status and latest result payload, but it does not disclose behavioral traits such as what happens while a task is still processing, whether authentication is required, or any polling behavior. It is not misleading but lacks depth.

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 of 12 words, front-loaded with the verb and object. Every word contributes value, with no repetition or fluff, making it optimally concise.

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 has only 2 parameters, but no output schema and no annotations. The description explains the basic function but does not provide context about the asynchronous nature of the task creation or how the result payload is structured. It is adequate for a simple status fetch but leaves some contextual gaps.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, with both parameters described ('Task id returned when the task was created' and 'Asynchronous endpoint the task was created on'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb 'Fetch' and clearly identifies the resource as 'current status and latest result payload for a hailuo task.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like image_to_video and text_to_video, which are task-creation tools, by being the retrieval/status-check tool.

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 after a task has been created via image_to_video or text_to_video, but it does not explicitly state this or mention alternatives. There is no 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance, so the usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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