task_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: Horizon tasks are pool-scoped, the task types are specified, and the mechanism for selecting a specific task is explained. It does not detail return format or pagination, but that gap is partially mitigated by the 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 compact and well-structured, starting with a clear '[READ]' prefix and a one-sentence purpose, followed by a short Args list. Every sentence adds useful information, with no redundancy against the schema or annotations.

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 tool with moderate complexity (3 params, one required), the description fully covers parameter semantics and the two operation modes. There is no output schema, and the description does not explicitly list return fields, but the 'status' concept and the list-all option make the return behavior reasonably clear. Slight lack of return-value detail prevents a 5.

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 schema provides only names, types, and defaults with 0% description coverage, but the description's Args section fully compensates. It explains pool_id as the desktop-pool id, task_id semantics (specific task vs omit for all), and target's source (config.yaml) with omission default. This is comprehensive parameter documentation.

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 ('Status') and resource ('a pool's long task'), clearly identifying what the tool does. It also distinguishes the two invocation modes (specific task vs all tasks) and names the task types (image push / provisioning), making it distinct from sibling tools like task_cancel.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool and how to choose between the two operation modes: provide task_id for one task, omit it to list all tasks. It references pool_push_image and prior task_status as sources for task_id, but it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusions, so it falls just short of a 5.

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