Check a Relay task

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, it discloses genuinely useful traits: no authentication key is required, the call blocks for at most 30 s, incomplete calls return status rather than results, and results expire 1 h after completion. These are non-obvious operational facts an agent could not infer from the annotations or schema, and they are consistent with the declared hints.

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 tight sentences with the core behavior front-loaded and no filler; the retention, wait and polling-loop facts each earn their place. The punctuation is slightly dense (a parenthetical plus a colon splice), which marginally hurts readability.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden itself and does so: it states that a completed task returns the result and an incomplete one returns status, plus how long results remain retrievable. For a 3-parameter polling tool, nothing an agent needs to call 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains task_id, wait_seconds (0–30, default 30) and inline_images. The description restates the 30 s wait but adds no format or edge-case meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description names a specific verb+resource ('Checks a task') and ties it directly to the tool that produced it ('a task run_model returned'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like check_workflow_run. The parenthetical 'no key needed: the task_id is the capability' further pins down the exact identifier it operates on.

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?

It gives explicit polling guidance: wait up to 30 s, and if it isn't done, 'call check_task again, never resubmit.' That directly answers the when-to-use-again question. It doesn't explicitly name or exclude the alternate workflow-checking sibling, so it falls just short of a 5.

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