Status of a task group

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the output shape (one summary per recipient plus count per status) but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or free of side effects. Given the 'get' prefix, agents may infer safety, but the description does not confirm it, and it also omits any mention of required permissions or return errors.

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, densely packed sentence that leads with the core purpose, then explains the input source and output format. No wasted words; every clause adds information. It is concise and well-structured.

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 no output schema, the description is responsible for explaining return values, which it does by specifying 'one summary per recipient plus a count per status.' It covers the essential input group id and the optional status filter. Minor gaps include lack of detail on the exact summary structure or any pagination, but for a tool with only 2 parameters, this is reasonably complete.

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 adds value by explaining that group_id is a grptsk_ group id originating from query_tasks, which the schema does not state. It also implies the status array filters results by state, reinforcing the schema's description. This additional context enhances the agent's understanding beyond the schema.

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 tool answers 'who has answered and who has not' for a task sent to multiple people, and specifies the input type (grptsk_ group id) and output (per-recipient summary plus count per status). This verb+resource is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like get_task or get_task_answer, which focus on single tasks or answers rather than group status.

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 gives clear context by linking the group id to query_tasks, implying when to use the tool (when you have a grptsk_ id from a multi-recipient task). It does not explicitly state when not to use alternatives, but the purpose is self-explanatory enough to route the agent. No misleading or absent guidance.

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