Get 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, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the scope of async task categories but nothing beyond that—no mention of return format rate limits, or error behavior. Given the annotations, the description provides some additional context but is not rich.

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action ('Check the status and progress') and includes illustrative examples. Every word earns its place; no fluff or redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema) and the description adequately explains what it does and covers common use cases. It does not mention how to obtain a task_id or that it is the generic fallback for status checks, but these are minor omissions for such a simple tool.

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 for the only parameter (task_id) is 100%, with the description 'The task ID to check'. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's function: checking the status and progress of an async task, with concrete examples (graph building, simulation preparation, report generation). It uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('async task'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling status-specific tools like mirofish_simulation_run_status or mirofish_report_generate_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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this generic task status tool versus the many sibling status-specific tools (e.g., mirofish_prepare_status, mirofish_simulation_run_status) or when to use a list endpoint like mirofish_list_tasks. The description implies a generic use case but gives no explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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