task_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to cover safety. It adds valuable behavioral context: tasks are pool-scoped, and the tool supports two modes (single task vs. all tasks). It also reinforces the read-only nature with '[READ]'. No contradictions with 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 compact three-sentence block, front-loaded with '[READ]' to immediately signal it's a read operation. Every sentence adds value: the scope, the parameter usage, and the source of task_id. No filler or repetition.

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 read-only status tool with no output schema, the description provides essential context: what kind of tasks (long tasks like image push/provisioning), how tasks are scoped, and how to select between single vs. all tasks. It doesn't describe the return format, but that's often acceptable for status tools, and the tool name implies a status response. Overall, an agent has enough to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning beyond the schema: it specifies that task_id should come from pool_push_image or a prior task_status, and clarifies the omit-to-list-all behavior (already in schema but reinforced). It doesn't add detail for target or pool_id beyond what the schema provides, but the added task_id context is useful.

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 reports the status of a pool's long task (image push/provisioning) or all tasks for the pool. It uses a specific verb ('Status') and resource ('pool's long task'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like task_cancel by focusing on reading rather than modifying tasks. The pool-scoping detail further clarifies its purpose.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to include task_id vs. omit it, and even mentions the source of a valid task_id (from pool_push_image or a prior task_status). It implies that for creating tasks you use pool_push_image and for canceling you use task_cancel, though it doesn't name these alternatives directly. It's clear when to use this tool, but doesn't state explicit exclusions.

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