get_task_status

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds context by listing returned fields (phase, progress, result, error), but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. It does not contradict annotations.

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, concise sentence that immediately states the purpose and includes key return values. There is no redundant or extraneous information.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what the tool does and what it returns. It could mention how to obtain a task_id (e.g., from submit_long_running_task), but this omission is minor.

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?

The input schema has one parameter (task_id) with no description. Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description does not explain the parameter's format, origin, or constraints. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to correctly provide the task_id.

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's function: 'Get status and progress of a long-running MCP Task.' It specifies the resource (MCP Task) and the action (getting status/progress), and lists what is returned (phase, progress, result, error). This distinguishes it from siblings that deal with other status types.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_tower_job_status or get_adaptive_brain_status. It implies use for 'long-running MCP Task' but does not define how to obtain a task ID or clarify prerequisites. There is no mention of when not to use it.

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