check_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses all possible return statuses, the not_found condition (already completed and removed), and the truncation behavior with full=true. This is rich behavioral detail beyond the schema.

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 tightly written with front-loaded purpose, a structured list of return values, and a concise note about the full parameter. Every sentence adds value with no 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 the tool's simplicity and presence of an output schema, the description covers the main workflow, return statuses, and edge cases. It fully explains the check_task behavior and is complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 0%, so the description compensates. It explicitly explains the `full` parameter ('retrieve the complete result without truncation'). `task_id` is not explicitly described but is clear from the context and the 'task_id not found' message.

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 clearly states 'Check the current status of a background task' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like run_task and cancel_task by focusing solely on status retrieval.

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 explicitly says 'use after run_task with background=true', providing clear workflow context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the instruction implies when to use this tool and the return statuses guide next actions.

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