get_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. The verb 'fetch' strongly implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, which provides some safety signal. However, it omits details about authentication requirements, error behavior on missing tasks, or whether the operation is idempotent, leaving 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 that immediately states the action and key detail. There is no wasted wording, and it is appropriately short for a simple two-parameter get operation.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the response contains, but it only says 'current status and latest result payload' without elaborating on the format or how statuses progress. It also fails to mention the asynchronous polling use case, making the description incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's role in a workflow.

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%, so the input schema already fully documents both 'task_id' and 'action'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond stating the task type, which is not needed. 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 clearly states the tool fetches the current status and latest result payload for an ideogram-v3 task, which is a specific verb+resource pairing. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, the sibling names are all action-creation endpoints, so 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?

The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that it should be used after creating a task or for polling, nor does it reference any sibling tools as the creation counterparts. Usage context is implied but not stated.

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