query_task

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains status values (QUEUED, RUNNING, SUCCESS, FAILED) and what to expect on SUCCESS (image URLs in 'url' field). It does not mention rate limits or auth, but for a read-only query tool, this is sufficient. Could be more detailed about error responses but adequate.

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 three sentences, no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose, then adds status details and result structure. Every sentence adds value; perfect conciseness for a simple query tool.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema, the description explains status and result fields adequately. It mentions the source of taskId and status transitions. For a polling/query tool with one parameter and clear output, the description covers all needed context. No gaps.

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 100%, and the schema already describes task_id as 'Task ID returned by text_to_image'. The description repeats this, adding no new semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Query the status and results of a previously submitted task.' It specifies the resource (task) and action (query). It distinguishes from sibling tools (text_to_image, run_text_to_image) by noting the taskId comes from text_to_image, making differentiation explicit.

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?

Description provides clear usage context: use after submitting a task, with taskId from text_to_image. It lists status values and behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools, but the sibling differentiation is implicit.

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