aiworkhub_agent_task_status

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

readOnlyHint already covers the safety profile, so credit goes to the added context: which fields fold vs. stay exact per mode, the byte-cost measurement (avg 11 KB/call, max 33 KB) and the card_sha256/card_bytes receipt. The dense field-name inventory is hard to parse but materially describes response shape and volume beyond the annotation.

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?

Front-loading the READ-ONLY statement and the default mode is good. The middle is a single sprawling paragraph of internal field names (terminal_failure, template_provenance.expanded_contract, worker_mcp_gate) that is hard to scan and could be condensed into a compact per-mode list.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape needn't be re-explained, yet the definition covers detail modes and folding well. It omits how to obtain request_id and any routing versus the many overlapping task-inspection siblings, leaving real gaps for an agent deciding whether to call this tool.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It thoroughly characterizes the detail enum behavior across summary/evidence/full, but never explains request_id at all — neither its meaning nor where the agent obtains one — leaving the sole required parameter undocumented.

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 and resource: 'inspect one launched process and its authoritative task card', and the READ-ONLY prefix sets scope immediately. It does not explicitly contrast with near-siblings like aiworkhub_task_show or aiworkhub_dashboard_task_detail, so an agent must infer which inspector to use.

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 explains the three detail levels and their default, which is genuinely useful for choosing how much to request. It gives no guidance on when this tool is preferred over task_show, dashboard_task_detail, or agent_list_processes, and no preconditions for obtaining request_id.

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