get_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the shape of the return at a high level ('current status and latest result payload'), which is useful, but says nothing about what status values exist, what the payload is before completion, auth requirements, or rate/polling limits.

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 filler; the verb, resource, and returned data are all in the first clause.

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 is the only source for return values, and it only sketches them ('status and latest result payload'). For a simple 2-parameter read tool with full schema coverage this is adequate but leaves an agent guessing about terminal states and pre-completion payloads.

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 parameters (task_id, action) are already documented in the schema, including the enum default behavior. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter formats or defaults; 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 ('Fetch') and resource ('runway-aleph task'), and names the payload returned (status + latest result). It is clearly distinguishable from edit_video, check_pricing and login, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives, no polling guidance (e.g. how often to re-check a running task), and no note that a task_id must first come from edit_video. Usage is only weakly implied by the schema's 'Task id returned when the task was created'.

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