check_task

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the two status values ("Not ready" vs "OK"), the fact that the key is consumed/expires after success ("ключ сгорает"), realistic timing (deploy can take 10–30 min), and progress-notification behavior when a progressToken is present. None of this is inferable from readOnlyHint/openWorldHint.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the workflow, status meanings, and timing. Dense but each sentence earns its place; only the progressToken note is somewhat tangential to invocation.

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 single-parameter polling tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: how to obtain the key, how to interpret result values, how long to wait, and notification behavior. Annotations already cover the safety profile.

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% and the single parameter is already described, setting a baseline of 3. The description adds value by clarifying the key's origin (returned in async operation responses) and its one-shot/expiring nature, which is meaningful semantics for how the parameter behaves.

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?

States a specific verb (проверка статуса) plus resource (асинхронной операции) and even names the underlying endpoint (eq_callback/check). It clearly distinguishes itself from the mutation siblings (power_on, order_server, reinstall_server) by framing itself as the status-polling tool for their callback keys.

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?

Explicitly explains the trigger condition: many InvAPI operations return {"result":"OK","callback":"<key>"}, and that key must be passed here. This is clear usage context, though it does not name an explicit alternative tool or state when NOT to use it.

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