check_dispatch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses both possible states of the poll (running result with elapsed_sec vs. full result once exited) and references the shape of the final output. It does not address edge cases like unknown dispatch_id, but the core runtime behavior is clearly explained.

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 two short blocks with no fluff: the action is front-loaded, and the return behavior is stated precisely. Every sentence adds information needed to call the tool correctly.

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 single-parameter polling tool with an output schema available, this description is complete. It tells the agent when to use it, what input it needs, what a running response looks like, and what the final response references. No critical decision or invocation information 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 0%, so the description must add meaning to dispatch_id. The context that this is a background dispatch started by dispatch_background gives the parameter implied meaning, but the description does not explicitly say where to obtain the ID or what format to expect. The semantics are inferable, not fully stated.

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 ('Poll') and resource ('a background dispatch started by dispatch_background'), immediately distinguishing this from plain dispatch or dispatch_history tools. It also contrasts its output with dispatch_query's return shape, further clarifying what unique role this tool plays.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool: after a background dispatch has been started by dispatch_background. It does not explicitly list exclusions or contrast with direct alternatives, but the context is unambiguous enough that an agent can select it appropriately.

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