Async tasks guidance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: it enumerates the content covered (statuses, hosted vs local wait caps, polling, webhook scope) and discloses that it is an equivalent substitute for the `guidance://async-tasks` resource for clients that don't read resources. It says nothing about the shape of what is returned, though an output schema exists.

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 tight sentences: scope first, trigger second, resource equivalence last. No restatement of the title and every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

For a zero-parameter documentation tool with an output schema, the description supplies purpose, trigger, and content coverage. Return-value detail is correctly left to the output schema, so nothing necessary for correct invocation is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case. The description correctly implies a parameterless, read-only lookup and adds no misleading parameter guidance.

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 names the exact subject matter (async workflows, tool executions, exports: statuses, wait caps, polling, webhooks) and frames the tool as documentation rather than an action, which cleanly separates it from the action siblings like list_tool_executions and get_tool_execution. It never distinguishes itself from the other guidance siblings (get_workflows_guidance, get_tools_vs_workflows_guidance, get_getting_started_guidance), so sibling differentiation is missing.

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?

Usage is stated as an explicit trigger: "Call before polling or when a start tool returns a still-running snapshot." That is a concrete when-to-use condition tied to observable agent state, not an implication the agent has to infer.

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