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 of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context about pagination (20-item limit) and specific status taxonomy, but does not explicitly state safety characteristics (read-only nature) or error handling, leaving gaps an annotation would normally cover.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the core function (returning status summaries) and efficiently packs in specific status values and result limits with zero wasted words.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description adequately compensates by detailing the return structure (count metrics + task list). For a single-parameter read operation, this provides sufficient completeness, though explicit safety confirmation would strengthen it further.

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%, documenting the optional 'project' filter parameter fully. The description does not mention the parameter, but since the schema is self-explanatory, it meets the baseline expectation without adding redundant information.

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 returns a status summary (状態サマリ) of autonomous tasks, specifying exact status categories (pending/in-progress/completed/failed/human-required/cancelled) and output format (counts + recent 20 items), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like task_submit (submission) and task_action_list (action listing).

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?

While the description implies usage context by detailing the output (status counts and recent tasks), suggesting it's for status overview/monitoring, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus task_action_list or task_submit, and contains no 'when-not-to-use' exclusions.

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