get_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return content (status plus latest result payload) and the word 'latest' hints that results may be partial or updated, but it omits whether the call blocks, what a pending task returns, idempotency, or any rate-limit behavior.

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?

One tight sentence with the resource and the two returned artifacts front-loaded; no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a simple two-parameter getter this is close, but with no output schema the description should explain the meaning of the status and result fields (e.g., terminal vs pending states). It names the returned artifacts without describing how to interpret them.

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% with both parameters documented, including the enum meanings for 'action', so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (Fetch) and resource (task) with scope (current status and latest result payload). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling creation endpoints (text_to_image, remix_image, edit_image), though it does not name them to make the contrast explicit.

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: 'current status' suggests polling a task created elsewhere, but there is no explicit statement of when to call it, no mention of the sibling create tools that produce the task_id, and no exclusions or timing guidance (e.g., poll interval, when status is terminal).

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