Check a delegated 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 the reporting behavior (status, tail, blocking) and a verification use case. However, it doesn't state whether checking status has side effects (e.g., marks job as read), how errors are handled, or the return format. It adds useful context but is not exhaustive.

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 primary purpose, and contains no redundant or vague wording. It efficiently communicates the tool's function and a key use case.

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 status tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: status reporting, activity tail, optional blocking, and verification usage. It doesn't detail the return structure, but the description's 'report whether... plus a tail' gives a sufficient mental model. The lack of an explicit non-destructive note is a minor gap.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description's references to blocking and tail map to wait_seconds and progress_limit, but the schema already describes these parameters clearly. No additional meaning is added beyond the schema.

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 the tool reports whether a delegated job is still running, provides a tail of tool calls and partial text, and optionally blocks. This distinguishes it from siblings like delegate_result (fetching final result) and delegate_start/delegate_followup/delegate_cancel/delegate_list. Specific verb+resource with unique features.

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 a concrete use case: 'Use the tool-call trace to check that a delegate really did the work it claims.' This implies when to use this tool (status/trace verification) and communicates its value over siblings. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use, but provides clear context.

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