yade_check_task_status

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

With no annotations, the description does not disclose behavioral traits like whether it polls repeatedly or returns immediately, nor does it mention any blocking behavior or side effects. The wait_seconds parameter hints at a delay, but the description fails to clarify overall behavior.

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 clear sentence with no wasted words. While it is very brief, it front-loads the core purpose. Could be slightly expanded for clarity, but remains 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?

Despite having an output schema and fully described parameters, the description omits crucial context: that this tool is meant to be used after yade_execute_task, that it can be used for polling, and how wait_seconds affects behavior. A more complete description would tie these elements together.

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?

All 5 parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds minimal context ('status and output') but does not enhance understanding of individual parameters beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 indicates the tool checks both status and output for a completed YADE task, distinguishing it from siblings like yade_execute_task (submission) or yade_interrupt_task (stopping).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as after submitting a task with yade_execute_task or for polling until completion. The description lacks context for usage flow.

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