Get Image Tasks

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

Goes beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by disclosing status-dependent return behavior: queued/preparing/running succeed, while failed/unknown/cancelled surface as isError with full status preserved. It also warns that checkpointer is a SQLite namespace, not a path or credential. Missing pagination/return-shape details keeps it at 4.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the core action and contrasted against resubmission, followed by status behavior and the checkpointer gotcha. Little waste, though the checkpointer sentence could be trimmed.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described; the description instead covers error semantics and the checkpointer pitfall, which are the real risks for a 5-param retrieval tool. The undocumented thread_id/limit and absent alternative-tool routing are the remaining gaps.

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 carry parameter meaning. It clarifies task_ids (filtering), pagination, and especially checkpointer semantics, which is high-value. However thread_id and limit go unexplained, and it says 'next_cursor' while the schema param is 'cursor', so the coverage is only partial.

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?

States a specific verb (查询/query) and resource (持久任务与图片绝对路径 – persistent tasks plus image absolute paths), and explicitly contrasts with the write sibling via '不重新提交上游'. It doesn't fully disentangle itself from get_batch_result, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives concrete usage context: filter by task_ids or paginate with the cursor, and it signals a when-not relative to submit_image_tasks ('does not resubmit upstream'). No explicit guidance on choosing between this and get_batch_result, so not a 5.

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