vibekit_get_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It simply says 'Get' without confirming non-destructive behavior, whether it can be polled repeatedly, or how it behaves for tasks still in progress. The absence of such disclosure is a notable gap for a tool with no annotations.

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 front-loads the action and resource. Every word is essential, and there is no redundant or extraneous information.

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?

With only one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete for basic invocation. However, it does not clarify whether this is a non-blocking poll or how to interpret 'status and result' for in-progress tasks, which is important given the presence of sibling wait_for_task.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with 'taskId' described as 'Task ID from vibekit_submit_task'. The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('status and result of a previously submitted task'), clearly differentiates from sibling tools like vibekit_submit_task, vibekit_list_tasks, and vibekit_wait_for_task, and communicates exactly what the tool returns.

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 phrase 'previously submitted task' implies this is used after vibekit_submit_task, providing some usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives like vibekit_wait_for_task or vibekit_list_tasks, nor does it state any exclusions.

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