check_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. Yet it never explains the polling semantics implied by wait_seconds — what happens on timeout, whether it blocks, what states the outcome can be in, or the return shape. For a polling-type tool this is a notable gap given there is no annotation coverage.

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?

Two tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded ahead of the usage trigger. No filler. It only loses a point because the second clause ('or to pick up a request the Claude Code hook raised') could arguably have been folded into the first, though it does add the sibling/hook context.

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 it has an output schema and only two parameters (one with a meaningful default), the description covers the core purpose and when to call it competently. But it leaves out the wait_seconds timeout/blocking behavior and the possible outcome states — information an agent polling after a pending escalation would reasonably need before calling.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it adds no parameter meaning at all. request_id and wait_seconds are never explained beyond their raw schema definition (an ID string and a defaulted integer). The description's mention of 'the request' hints at request_id but provides no semantics like what a valid ID looks like or what wait_seconds controls.

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 names a specific verb and resource — 'Retrieve the outcome of an escalation' — with an explicit scope qualifier ('from MCP OR the hook'). It differentiates itself from its sibling run_privileged by the triggering mechanism it responds to, so an agent can tell exactly what this tool is for.

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 gives explicit when-to-use context: 'after run_privileged returns pending, or to pick up a request the Claude Code hook raised.' This is clear and actionable, though it stops short of stating when-not-to-use or naming an alternative for older/unresolved requests.

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