Check for a reply to an earlier ask / request_ack (non-blocking by default)

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

No annotations provided, so description fully carries the burden. Discloses non-blocking default behavior, immediate return vs long-polling via wait_seconds, return object format, and 30-minute reply retention. No contradictions.

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?

Single well-structured paragraph that starts with purpose, then usage, then parameter details, then return value and retention. Every sentence provides necessary information without fluff.

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 no annotations or output schema, description is thorough. Covers parameters, return format, retention, and usage. Minor gap: no mention of error cases or null fields, but not critical for this simple tool.

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 covers all three parameters with descriptions. Description adds value: explains that message_id comes from prior calls, topic defaults to file/env var, and clarifies when to pass topic explicitly. Exceeds baseline of 3.

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?

Clearly states the tool checks for replies to a prior ask/request_ack. Distinguishes from siblings by specifying its role as a follow-up to timeouts or cancellations, complementing send_alert, send_critical, ask, and request_ack.

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?

Explicitly describes when to use: after a timeout from ask/request_ack or after client cancellation. Provides guidance on interpreting the response for approval gates. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' but context is sufficient.

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