get-prompt-enhancement-task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does useful work: it identifies a GET endpoint, describes polling, enumerates `status` values, and names `completed_prompt` as the output on success. It stops short of documenting auth, rate limits, or failed-task error details.

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 front-loaded and compact, covering polling, status values, and the success field in four sentences. The wrapper function and endpoint details are somewhat implementation-oriented but not disruptive.

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?

For a simple one-parameter polling tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential call behavior: poll the task, watch `status`, and read `completed_prompt` on completion. It leaves some response and error details unspecified, but the core operational context is sufficient.

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% and the only parameter is already documented as the task id from `start-prompt-enhancement`. The description adds no further meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Poll a prompt-enhancement task.' It also distinguishes the operation from the sibling `start-prompt-enhancement` by implying retrieval of an existing task rather than creation.

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 word 'Poll' clearly signals the intended repeated-call usage, and the schema links `task_id` to `start-prompt-enhancement`. It lacks explicit when-not guidance or mention of alternatives such as `wait-for-response`, but the usage context is still clear.

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