itasca_check_task_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It does add real value by describing the return content (Python prints and console output interleaved in execution order), but it omits whether the call is read-only/safe, what happens if the task is still running or the ID is invalid, and it leaves the long-poll semantics of wait_seconds entirely to the schema.

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?

Two short paragraphs, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the one genuinely non-obvious detail (output interleaving). No filler sentences, though the parameter advice could have been folded into the first sentence more tightly.

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 formatting need not be explained, yet the description usefully characterizes the content shape. With no annotations, a small gap remains around safety/read-only status and error or task-not-ready behavior, but for a status-checking tool this is close to sufficient.

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 all five parameters are already documented in structured fields; the description only restates skip_newest, limit and filter. It adds no new information about wait_seconds' long-poll behavior or about how filter interacts with pagination ordering.

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 a specific verb-and-resource pair ("Check status and paginated output for a submitted Itasca task") and the second paragraph clarifies what 'output' means (interleaved Python prints and console output). It implicitly separates itself from itasca_list_tasks/itasca_execute_task by scoping to an already-submitted task, but never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

"Use skip_newest / limit to paginate, or filter to keep only matching lines" gives usage for three parameters but says nothing about when to call this tool versus itasca_list_tasks or how to poll a running task. The when-to-use context is implied by 'submitted task' rather than stated.

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