get_task_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so richly. It discloses blocking behavior with wait_ms, the cap on wait time (60s), the fact that a still-running task returns RUNNING, the compact vs detailed response distinction, and the environment variable override. This goes well beyond a simple status getter.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. The first paragraph states exactly what the tool does. The second explains response options, and the third explains long-polling behavior. Each sentence contributes valuable information with no filler.

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, this description is highly complete. It covers the default response, optional detail, long-polling behavior, timeout cap, and environment variable. Since an output schema exists, the description need not enumerate return fields, and it doesn't unnecessarily repeat what structured data could convey.

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 compensate. It thoroughly explains detail (compact vs full metadata) and wait_ms (long-poll, blocking, cap). run_id is only implicitly referenced ('for a Fluxion run'), but its meaning is self-evident from the schema and name. Overall, the description adds significant meaning for two of three parameters.

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 gets 'model-friendly status and next action for a Fluxion run,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_task_result by focusing on model-friendly, polling-oriented output, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 for when to use the tool: it is designed for polling, with a compact default response and optional long-polling via wait_ms. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with sibling tools like get_fluxion_status, but the polling use case is clearly implied.

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