get_sfx_task

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it does not poll, never charges, and details all possible return states (still processing, succeeded, failed including refund info). No contradictions exist.

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 about 120 words, uses a clear structure with separate sections for args and returns, and avoids redundancy. A slight reduction in wording could improve conciseness without losing clarity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (2 params, no enums, no nested objects, output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage trigger, parameter meaning, return behavior, and charging policy. It is fully self-contained.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description adds meaning: task_id is from the timeout message, output_directory is optional and defaults to SONILO_MCP_BASE_PATH. This provides necessary context beyond the schema's type definitions.

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 checks and downloads results for audio generation tasks, naming the specific source tools (text_to_sfx, video_to_sfx, audio_ducking). It distinguishes itself as the retrieval mechanism for their timeouts, which is distinct from the sibling generation tools.

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 exactly when to use the tool: to recover a result when a generation task timed out, and mentions that it does not poll (single call per status). It does not explicitly list alternatives for retrieving results, but the context makes the intended use clear.

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