Get PBS Task Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the tool returns both task status and log output, which is useful but not extensive. It does not mention potential errors, response formatting, or any side effects, but with strong annotations this is acceptable.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus an Args/Returns block. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and contains zero fluff or repetition. Every word earns its place.

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 simplicity (one required parameter, read-only, idempotent, no output schema), the description fully covers what it does and what it returns. It mentions both status and log lines, which is sufficient for a getter tool. The annotations handle the safety and mutability context, so no additional information is needed.

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 100% for the single 'upid' parameter, and the schema already provides 'Task UPID string'. The description repeats 'The task UPID' without adding extra detail (e.g., format, where to find it, or examples). Since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 applies, and the description adds no meaningful parameter semantics 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 states 'Get the status and log output of a specific task by its UPID', using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('status and log output' of a specific task). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like pbs_list_tasks, which lists tasks, and pbs_get_node_status, which targets node 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 implies usage for a specific task identified by UPID, which is clear from the context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling list and the focus on 'specific task' provide sufficient contextual guidance. No misleading or missing when-not information.

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