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 behavioral burden. It implies a read-only fetch and says what is returned, but omits what status values exist, whether the result payload is absent while pending, idempotency, auth requirements, and any rate limits on polling.

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 no filler; the verb and the two returned artifacts come first. Nothing in it is redundant.

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 read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate but leaves the return semantics vague: what 'status' values look like and whether the result payload is null while the task is running are 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%, with both task_id and the action enum fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, format, or usage detail for either parameter beyond naming the task concept.

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 states a specific verb (fetch) and resource (current status plus latest result payload) for a named task type, so an agent can tell it is a polling/retrieval tool. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like extend_video or text_to_video, which create the tasks this one reads.

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 when-to-use guidance: no statement that this is the polling endpoint for tasks created by extend_video/text_to_video, no polling cadence advice, and no alternative to use instead. The workflow is only inferable from the 'action' enum hinting at the originating asynchronous endpoint.

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