pfc_check_task_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently describes the output as 'combined Python prints and PFC console output interleaved in execution order' and explains pagination and filtering behavior. It lacks discussion of error handling or rate limits but is generally sufficient.

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 two sentences with no waste. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second adds key behavioral details. Front-loaded and efficient.

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, and an output schema, the description covers the main usage and output structure well. It does not detail edge cases (e.g., task not found) but is complete for normal operation.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that skip_newest/limit control pagination, filter selects matching lines, and wait_seconds sets a delay before querying. This goes beyond the schema's bare descriptions.

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 status and paginated output' and the resource 'submitted PFC task'. It distinguishes from siblings like pfc_execute_task (submits) and pfc_interrupt_task (interrupts) by focusing on status checking and output retrieval.

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 explains pagination and filtering mechanics but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., after submitting a task). The context is implied but not fully articulated.

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