check_task_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It only states 'check status' without detailing possible status values (e.g., pending, completed, failed), whether the call is idempotent, or any rate limits. This is minimal transparency for a polling tool.

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, concise sentence with no extraneous information. While it could include more detail without sacrificing conciseness, it is well-structured and to the point.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not explain the format or possible values of the status response. For a check-status tool, an agent likely needs to know what the returned status looks like (e.g., string enum) to decide next actions. The description is incomplete in this regard.

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 single parameter 'task_id' has a schema description specifying it comes from 'generate_image_async,' which adds valuable context beyond the type and requirement. With 100% schema coverage, the description provides meaningful additional guidance on where the ID originates.

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 'Check async image generation task status,' specifying the verb (check), resource (async image generation task), and the operation (status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_image_sync, generate_image_async, and download_image, which focus on creation or downloading.

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 usage after calling generate_image_async, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention polling behavior or that it should be called repeatedly until completion.

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