check_task_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: it specifies the return values (status, result, proof, etc.), polling constraints ('no more than once every 30 seconds'), typical task duration ('2-30 minutes'), and security warnings about untrusted data ('WARNING: result, proof_text, and proof_url are worker-supplied...'). This covers critical aspects like rate limits, timing, and data handling beyond basic functionality.

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 and concise, with every sentence adding value. It front-loads the core purpose, then details returns, polling guidelines, and warnings efficiently. There is no redundant or unnecessary information, making it easy to parse and actionable for an AI agent.

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 complexity (involving polling, untrusted data, and coordination with 'need_human'), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is highly complete. It explains what the tool does, how to use it, behavioral constraints, and output semantics, covering all necessary context for an agent to invoke it correctly and safely.

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 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'task_id' documented as 'The task_id returned by need_human.' The description adds value by implicitly reinforcing this in the opening sentence ('Use after dispatching a task via need_human'), but it does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, but the contextual linkage earns a slightly higher score.

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 purpose: 'Use after dispatching a task via need_human to check whether the human worker has completed it.' It specifies the verb ('check'), resource ('task'), and context ('after dispatching via need_human'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'need_human' (which creates tasks) and 'list_tasks' (which lists them).

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 explicit usage guidelines: it states when to use ('after dispatching a task via need_human'), when not to use (implied by not being for task creation or listing), and alternatives (none directly named, but context suggests 'need_human' for creation and 'list_tasks' for listing). It also includes detailed polling advice, such as 'Poll no more than once every 30 seconds' and a 'Suggested pattern,' which helps guide effective use.

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