get_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of disclosing side effects and behavior. It states the read-only action ('Fetch'), but does not mention whether the call is safe to repeat, what happens if the task is incomplete, auth requirements, or error semantics. This leaves significant behavioral 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 with no redundant information. Every word contributes to defining the tool's purpose and scope.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations means the description must explain return behavior and contextual details. It mentions 'status and latest result payload' but does not describe how status is represented, when the payload becomes available, pagination (if any), or error conditions. For a tool with only 2 parameters and no rich schema, this is a notable gap.

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 provides complete descriptions for both parameters (task_id and action), covering 100% of the query parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the 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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and names the resource ('qwen-2 task') and the data returned ('current status and latest result payload'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like login, edit_image, and text_to_image, though without explicitly naming them as alternatives.

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 check on an existing asynchronous task created via siblings, but it does not explicitly state when to use it, what prerequisites exist (e.g., task_id from a prior call), or which alternatives to consider. The wording 'current status' hints at polling, but no direct guidance is provided.

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