get_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Fetch' implies a read-only operation, and it specifies what is returned (status and result payload). However, it does not disclose error behaviors, authentication needs, or whether results can be polled repeatedly. This is adequate but lacks richer safety or side-effect context.

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 filler. It efficiently communicates the core function and includes the key resource ('runway-aleph task') in a compact way.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives a basic understanding of the return type (status and payload) but omits details about polling behavior, status interpretation, or connection to sibling tools like edit_video. It is minimally complete but leaves room for ambiguity.

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 already provides 100% description coverage for both parameters (action and task_id), each with clear schema descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema covers, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Fetch') and the specific resource ('current status and latest result payload for a runway-aleph task'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like login, edit_video, and check_pricing, making the purpose immediately clear.

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 usage for checking on an asynchronous task (likely after using edit_video), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or include any exclusionary guidance. No alternatives are named, and the when-to-use context is only inferred.

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