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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description reinforces this and adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact: 'Never reruns the command.' It also implies safe repeated polling. idempotentHint=false is consistent with polling (results change from running to exited), so no contradiction. Lacks any note on pacing/backoff, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with what is checked, then the workflow, then the safety guarantee. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Output schema exists, so return-value details need not be explained, and the description still hints at exit code and output size. Combined with the hand-off to read_mac_output and the strict no-rerun guarantee, an agent has everything needed to call and sequence it correctly.

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% with only two required params, so the schema already documents job_id and session_id fully, including their provenance formats. The description adds provenance context (job IDs come from exec_mac) but nothing beyond schema. Baseline 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 (check) plus the resource (a command started by exec_mac) and enumerates the observable states (running, exited, failed) plus returned fields (exit code, output size). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like exec_mac and read_mac_output.

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 instructs to poll until the job finishes and then hand off to read_mac_output, naming the alternative and the condition that selects it. No inference required.

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