get_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a repeatable read ('current status') and indicates a result payload is returned, which is useful, but it omits what happens for pending/failed tasks, whether results are retained or expire, and whether polling is required.

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 zero waste; the verb and the returned data are both stated immediately.

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 correctly names what is returned ('current status and latest result payload'). For a simple two-parameter poll tool this is nearly sufficient, with only task-state and failure behavior left unstated.

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 both task_id and the action enum are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about how task_id or action correlate with task creation, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch the current status and latest result payload for a nano-banana task.' This clearly distinguishes it from the async creation siblings (edit_image, text_to_image), though it never explicitly names itself as their polling counterpart.

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 only implied: fetching 'current status' suggests polling a task created via edit_image/text_to_image, but the description never states when to call it, how often, or what to do instead. No alternatives or exclusions are named.

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