get_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses what is returned (status plus latest result payload) and that the payload can change over time, but it omits the safety profile (read-only, non-destructive), any polling/rate-limit expectations, and what status values or terminal states look like.

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, the returned data, and the task scope all land immediately.

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 polling tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials (what it returns) but leaves gaps around terminal states, polling cadence, and error behavior. Adequate but not fully self-sufficient.

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 in the schema, including the action enum of async endpoints, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 (current status and latest result payload) scoped to a veo-3-1 task, so the agent immediately knows this is a status-retrieval tool. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling creation tools (text_to_video, extend_video, upscale_video), but the resource it names makes the distinction obvious in practice.

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 guidance on when to call it versus alternatives, how soon after creating a task to poll, or how often to re-poll. The word 'current' hints at a polling role, but the agent must infer that this is the follow-up to the async creation siblings on its own.

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