Check a delegated task

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses the tool's behavior: it reports running status, provides a tail of activity (including tool calls and partial text), and can optionally block for a specified duration. It does not mention potential side effects, but since it's a read-only monitoring operation, the disclosure is adequate.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence adds a usage tip, which is relevant but slightly redundant. Every sentence earns its place, and there is 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 there are 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the tool's purpose, the key output (status and trace), and the optional blocking feature. It lacks explicit mention of the return format or error cases, but for a monitoring tool this is acceptable.

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 100%, so each parameter has a description in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the tool reports the status of a delegated job ('Report whether a delegated job is still running'), a tail of activity ('actual tool calls and partial text'), and the option to block until completion. This distinguishes it from siblings like delegate_start (which initiates a job) and delegate_result (which presumably gets the final result).

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 context for when to use this tool: to check if a delegate is still running and to use the tool-call trace to verify a delegate's actions. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context ('Use the tool-call trace to check that a delegate really did the work it claims') implies it is for post-delegation monitoring versus delegate_cancel for aborting.

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