pfc_check_task_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'check status and output' but lacks behavioral details such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it polls or waits, potential rate limits, or what the output format includes (though output schema exists). This leaves gaps for a tool with multiple parameters.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Check status and output for a submitted PFC task') with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, but 100% schema coverage and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral context, making it incomplete for optimal agent understanding despite structured data support.

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 the schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying 'task_id' comes from pfc_execute_task, which is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 the verb ('check') and resource ('status and output for a submitted PFC task'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'pfc_list_tasks' or 'pfc_interrupt_task' which also deal with task status, missing explicit distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'submitted PFC task' but doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., requires a task_id from pfc_execute_task) or contrast with siblings like pfc_list_tasks for listing all tasks versus checking a specific one.

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