human_get_task_status

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

Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it fetches fresh status from the backend, merges new data (worker assignment, proof uploads, completion), and returns a full task object with detailed fields. No contradictions or omissions.

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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose, return details, parameter explanation, returns, example, and don't-use. Every sentence is informative and concise; no fluff.

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's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, parameters, return format, usage guidance, and example. It is fully complete for AI agent invocation.

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% and the description adds minimal extra value beyond the schema's own description (e.g., 'The UUID returned by human_dispatch_task'). The schema already documents the parameter adequately, so 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 states 'Get the current status of a previously dispatched human task.' It specifies the verb (get) and resource (status of human task), and distinguishes from siblings like human_list_tasks (which lists all tasks) and human_dispatch_task (which creates 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 includes a 'DON'T USE WHEN' section that explicitly states when to use alternatives (human_list_tasks) and provides clear context for when the tool should not be used. This is excellent guidance.

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