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 discloses that the operation is a read ('Fetch') and what it returns ('current status and latest result payload'), but omits auth requirements, rate limits, error behavior, and whether calls are safe to repeat. This is a clear gap.

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?

Single front-loaded sentence with no filler; it states the action and the two pieces of information returned. Every word earns its place.

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 two-parameter fetch tool with full schema coverage and no annotations, the description is largely sufficient for invocation. However, since there is no output schema, it only vaguely describes the return ('status and latest result payload') and omits polling or retry context, leaving minor gaps.

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 are already documented in the schema. The description does not mention task_id or action, adding no meaning beyond the schema; the baseline of 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Specific verb 'Fetch' with a clear resource ('current status and latest result payload') and target ('vidu task'). This distinguishes it from sibling creation tools like image_to_video and reference_to_video, which start tasks rather than check 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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of polling after task creation, and no alternatives named (e.g., that this is the tool to call after image_to_video or reference_to_video). Usage is only implied by the purpose.

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