check_task_status

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

With no annotations, the description discloses return values (status, progress, download links). It implies a read-only operation, though it could explicitly mention polling safety. Still, the key behavior is documented.

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?

Three sentences front-load the core purpose and provide details without waste. Each sentence earns its place, making it efficient and clear.

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?

For a simple check tool, it explains return values but lacks parameter descriptions and output schema. Given the absence of schema descriptions, more detail on parameters would improve completeness.

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 0%, requiring the description to explain parameters. It does not describe task_id or task_type beyond the purpose statement, leaving the agent to infer from context. The enum values are only in schema, not in description.

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 tool checks status and progress of a Meshy generation task, listing possible statuses and returned fields. It effectively distinguishes from sibling generation tools.

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?

Explicitly specifies when to use: for tasks started with wait_for_completion: false, or to check on previous generations. This provides clear guidance and implies not for starting tasks.

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