yade_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 full burden. It implies a read-only status check but never states that it is non-destructive or requires no auth, and it says nothing about the long-polling semantics, pagination, or filtering behavior that materially affect how the agent should call it.

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?

A single efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. However, the terseness contributes to the missing behavioral context rather than earning its brevity.

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 values need not be explained. But for a tool with non-trivial polling, pagination, and filtering semantics, the description says nothing about how or when to poll, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema.

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 (limit, filter, task_id, skip_newest, wait_seconds) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter behavior, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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+resource ('check status and output') for a 'submitted YADE task', so the agent knows this is a read/retrieval tool. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like yade_list_tasks, but the 'submitted task' scoping gives reasonable disambiguation.

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?

There is no indication of when to use this versus yade_list_tasks or yade_execute_task, nor any mention of the intended polling pattern (the long-poll behavior in wait_seconds suggests repeated invocation, which is never explained). Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and schema.

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