origin_bridge_task_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool reads data (status, result, logs) and implies no side effects, but does not mention what happens if the task does not exist, authentication requirements, or network behavior. Basic transparency but not detailed.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's function without any fluff. Every word adds value.

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 lacks explanation of crucial connection parameters (host, port, token, timeout) and does not mention error handling or behavior when the task is not found. Despite having an output schema, the agent is left guessing about setup and failure modes.

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 0%. The description mentions task_id, include_logs, log_limit, and include_result, but fails to explain host, port, token, and timeout parameters, which are likely for connection/authentication. These missing semantics hinder 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 it reads status, result, or logs for an Origin bridge background task. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like origin_bridge_cancel_task, origin_bridge_submit_task, and origin_bridge_list_tasks.

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 implies that this tool is used to check task progress by reading status/result/logs, but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives like origin_bridge_list_tasks or origin_bridge_cancel_task. No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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