Get Task Status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a useful state machine (running/done/error) and that 'done' yields the full run_template-shaped result, which is genuine beyond-schema information. However, it says nothing about result retention, whether the task record expires after completion, or polling expectations.

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?

One compact sentence, front-loaded with the action and the state list, with the payload note trailing. Nothing is redundant and nothing needs trimming.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required, and the description usefully adds that the done-result matches run_template. What is missing for a polling tool is the operational context: how the task_id is obtained and whether/how results expire.

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 coverage is 0% and the single task_id parameter is undocumented in both schema and description. The description implies task_id comes from the async run flow, but does not state its origin or format explicitly, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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?

States the specific verb+resource ('query async task status') and enumerates the three possible states, which makes the tool's job unambiguous. It also ties the 'done' payload back to run_template's return structure, hinting at the async workflow. It stops short of explicitly naming run_template_async as the producer of the task_id.

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 only implied: the phrase 'async task status' plus the sibling set (run_template_async) makes the polling role inferable, but there is no explicit 'call this after run_template_async', no indication of when to stop polling, and no mention of alternatives.

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