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 explains that output 'combines Python prints and PFC console output ... interleaved in execution order,' which is a key behavioral trait beyond the schema. However, it does not disclose possible status values, error conditions, or whether the tool blocks until completion, leaving some gaps.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the main purpose, and the second adds necessary detail. Ideal conciseness.

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 5 parameters and an output schema (present but not shown), the description explains the output nature and pagination adequately. It could mention status states, but with output schema handling return values, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 only restates the pagination and filtering mechanism already present in parameter descriptions ('Use skip_newest / limit to paginate, or filter to keep only matching lines'). No additional meaning is added 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?

The description starts with 'Check status and paginated output for a submitted PFC task,' using a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('status and output for a PFC task'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like pfc_execute_task (submit) and pfc_list_tasks (list tasks).

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 submitting a task by stating 'for a submitted PFC task' and provides guidance on parameter use ('Use skip_newest / limit to paginate, or filter to keep only matching lines'). However, it lacks explicit when-not or alternatives, relying on context from the tool name and sibling set.

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