arsenkin_task_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. The word 'durable' usefully indicates the status is persisted rather than transient, and 'Return' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose behavior such as what states are possible, whether the job may still be running, or whether an unknown job_id produces an error.

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 front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. It immediately states the action and object, which is ideal for a simple one-parameter tool.

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?

The tool is simple and includes an output schema, so return-value documentation is not required. The basic invocation is inferable: provide a job_id. Still, the description leaves ambiguous how this differs from the similarly named 'arsenkin_status' and does not clarify the meaning or lifecycle of 'durable status', so context is only partially complete.

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?

There is only one parameter, job_id, and its name is reasonably self-explanatory, but the schema has 0% description coverage and the tool description does not explain how job_id is obtained, its format, or how it relates to other Arsenkin tools. Low schema coverage requires compensation, and the description provides none.

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 states a specific action ('Return durable status') on a specific resource ('the principal's Arsenkin job'), so the core purpose is clear. However, with sibling 'arsenkin_status' also present, the description does not explicitly distinguish what makes this task status tool different from that status tool.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'arsenkin_status' or 'arsenkin_get_result'. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context about when durable status is the appropriate choice.

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