mcp_qwen_check_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return payload (status values, parsed_files, project structure), but it does not state whether the call is read-only/idempotent, whether it returns immediately or blocks while the subagent runs, or what happens with an invalid/expired task_id. No contradiction exists because no annotations were provided.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler. The first sentence front-loads the core verb and resource; the second compactly lists return values including the exact status enum. Every clause earns its place and the structure is easy to scan.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description correctly takes on the job of explaining return values and does it well. However, it omits workflow decision guidance — what the agent should do given each status and that this tool sits between submit_task and continue_task/verify_task/extract_and_write_files. For a simple one-parameter tool this is adequate, but an agent must infer the polling loop and next-step routing from sibling names alone.

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% — task_id is already documented in the schema as the identifier obtained from mcp_qwen_submit_task. The tool description adds no meaning about the parameter 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 states a specific verb and resource — 'Проверяет статус выполнения задачи субагентом Qwen' (checks the status of a Qwen subagent task) — and adds the returned status enum (RUNNING, COMPLETED, NEED_CONTINUATION, ERROR), parsed_files, and project structure. This makes its purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it functionally from siblings like submit_task, continue_task, verify_task, extract_and_write_files, and get/set_config.

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?

Usage context is only implied: the schema's parameter description ties task_id to mcp_qwen_submit_task, and the status enum hints at a polling workflow, but the description never states when to call this tool versus mcp_qwen_verify_task, nor how to react to each status (e.g., NEED_CONTINUATION routing to continue_task). There are no explicit alternatives, exclusions, or when-not-to-use conditions.

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