task_status

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: tasks are pool-scoped, and the tool either returns one task status or all tasks depending on task_id presence. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful semantics beyond what annotations convey.

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 concise and well-structured: a brief intro, a scoping note, and a formatted Args list. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 description sufficiently covers invocation modes and pool scoping given the rich annotations and simple parameter set. No output schema exists, so return format is not described, but that is not a major gap for a status query tool. It could mention error cases or return shape, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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 zero description coverage, but the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter: pool_id (desktop-pool id), task_id (specific task id; omit for all), and target (Horizon target from config.yaml; omit for default). It also clarifies the conditional behavior of task_id, which is critical for correct invocation.

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 reads the status of a pool's long task (image push/provisioning) or lists all tasks for the pool. The verb 'Status' and resource 'pool's long task' are precise, and the optional task_id behavior distinguishes it from sibling tools like task_cancel and pool_push_image.

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 description explains when to provide task_id (from pool_push_image or prior task_status) versus omitting it to list all tasks, and notes that Horizon tasks are pool-scoped. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the read-only purpose and context are clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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