get_task

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

Annotations are none, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It states the tool fetches status and result payload, indicating a read-only nature. However, it does not mention whether the call is blocking, rate-limited, or what happens if the task is still running. It adds some value by describing the output (status and latest result) but lacks depth.

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 concise sentence that conveys the core action and object. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with the verb 'Fetch'. Perfectly structured for a simple tool.

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 read operation with 2 fully documented parametersches, the description is sufficient. It states what is fetched (status, result payload) without needing to explain return values since no output schema is present. It does not mention asynchronous behavior or poll semantics, but that is not critical for a basic status fetch.

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 coverage is 100% — both 'task_id' and 'action' have descriptions and action has an enum. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, but that's acceptable given the high coverage. Baseline 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 clearly states the action: 'Fetch the current status and latest result payload for a seedream task.' It identifies the resource (task) and the specific data retrieved. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that create tasks (decompose_layers, edit_image, text_to_image) by focusing on retrieval rather than submission.

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 after a task has been created (since it fetches status/result of a 'seedream task'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites or that this should be polled after async operations. The context is clear but not explicit.

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