Get DSH task status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower; the description still adds the long-poll ceiling and the terminal-flag workflow that drives the next call. The term "bounded" is left undefined, which leaves the agent unsure what is truncated in the response, but the operationally important traits are disclosed.

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?

Three compact sentences: what it returns, how to poll efficiently, and the follow-up call. The guidance is front-loaded and every sentence carries a distinct instruction with no filler.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the start_task -> get_status -> get_result flow is fully traceable for a two-parameter tool. The only residual gap is that "bounded" is unexplained, so an agent cannot tell whether status fields are truncated.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes beyond the schema's neutral "wait up to this many seconds" by explaining the intent (avoid tight polling) and restating the 25s cap. It does not distinguish task_id usage further, but the added rationale is genuine semantic value.

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?

"Return the bounded status of a DSH task" gives a specific verb plus resource and the final sentence implicitly separates status-checking from result-retrieval via the dsh_get_result handoff. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with dsh_list_tasks or dsh_health_check, but the status/result boundary is clear enough to act on.

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?

It states two concrete usage conditions: use wait_seconds for a long-poll rather than rapid polling, and call dsh_get_result once terminal is true. That is real when-to-use guidance with a stated alternative, though it gives no guidance on when to cancel (dsh_cancel_task) or on what to do while non-terminal.

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