check_task_result

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return payload (task description, current status, result if completed) which adds value. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., read-only nature), error handling for invalid task_id, or behavior when the task is not found, leaving some gaps.

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 conveys purpose and return value without unnecessary fluff. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 read-only tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and return values. It lacks workflow guidance (e.g., polling until completion) but is otherwise sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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% with task_id fully described. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it earns the baseline score of 3.

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 the status and result of a delegated task, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like delegate_task and list_delegated_tasks implicitly by focusing on a single task's result, but does not explicitly differentiate from list_delegated_tasks which is for listing all 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?

Usage is implied: this is for checking a specific task's status/result. The description does not provide explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, nor any exclusions, but the purpose strongly suggests the appropriate context.

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