Get Task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds real behavioral detail on top: the call can block, the wait is capped at 60s, and it terminates early on COMPLETED/FAILED. It does not enumerate the full status vocabulary or say what happens if the task_id is unknown/expired, which are the remaining behavioral gaps.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the wait_time semantics, then the handoff to get_export. Nothing is redundant with the schema or annotations, and every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 values need no prose, and the polling/blocking model plus the get_export handoff cover the core of a two-parameter read tool. The only shortfall is not stating the provenance of task_id or the full set of terminal/non-terminal statuses an agent might branch on.

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 must carry both parameters. It does this well for wait_time (0 vs >0, 60s cap, terminal-state early exit), but task_id is never explained — no statement of where it comes from or its lifetime. Half the parameters are covered, so this lands at adequate rather than strong.

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: retrieves the status of an async task, with a concrete example (presentation generation). It also names the natural follow-up tool, get_export, so an agent can place it among siblings like get_deck and get_export without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit branching guidance: wait_time=0 for an immediate snapshot, wait_time>0 to block until COMPLETED/FAILED or the window elapses, and points at get_export once a generation is COMPLETED. It stops short of saying when to prefer polling versus waiting in a given workflow, and never says where task_id originates (presumably create_presentation).

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