check_delegation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden and does well: it names the three terminal statuses, the elapsed-time and session-id returns, the 8,000-character output truncation, and the context cost of each poll. It stops short of stating auth requirements or backing-store behavior.

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 short sentences, each doing distinct work: payload contents, polling discipline, and the id-omitted mode. No filler, and the core return contract is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates by explaining exactly what comes back (status, elapsed, session id, truncated output) and how to poll responsibly. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% and the single parameter's description already says 'Omit to list all jobs'. The description repeats that hint but adds no format or validation detail beyond the schema, so 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) on a specific resource (a delegation started with background:true). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling delegate tool by framing itself as the poller, not the starter, and notes the no-id listing mode.

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?

Gives concrete operational guidance: wait between polls instead of tight-looping, and omit the id to list all jobs. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative for starting a job, but the when/how is well covered.

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