check_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses every possible return status, including nuanced ones like 'needs_review' and 'not_found', and explains the behavior of full=true for retrieving untruncated results.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence usage note, a bullet-like list of statuses, and a final parameter tip. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition or filler.

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 tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description covers all essential behavior: when to call it, all possible return values, and the meaning of the optional flag. Nothing needed 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains the effect of full=true, and task_id is given meaning through the not_found status. It could additionally state that task_id comes from run_task's response, but the usage line makes that inferable.

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 opens with 'Check the current status of a background task', a specific verb and resource that makes the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly linking to run_task with background=true and enumerating the exact statuses it returns.

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 gives explicit usage context: 'use after run_task with background=true'. It does not explicitly name alternatives or conditions when not to use, but the sibling context and the status list imply when check_task applies versus reply_task or cancel_task.

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