check_task

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

Adds substantial context beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations: how to interpret result values ('Not ready' vs 'OK'), that the key expires after completion, that deploys can take 10-30 minutes, and that progress notifications are emitted when a progressToken was supplied. This is exactly the lifecycle/timing detail annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then packs interpretation, timing, and notification behavior into a few dense clauses. Every sentence carries usable operational information with no filler.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations covering return values, the description takes on the full burden and delivers: result semantics, key expiry, and expected latency. Nothing an agent needs to poll and reason about completion is missing.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by explaining the parameter's origin (the key from a prior async response) and its lifecycle (the key expires once the result is 'OK'). It stops short of adding format details, so it is not a full 5.

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 (Check) and resource (async job status) and names the exact mechanism (eq_callback/check) with the callback key. No sibling tool does this, so it is unambiguous even within a large tool set.

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?

Clearly states when to use it: operations that return {"result":"OK","callback":"<key>"}, enumerating concrete examples (power on/off, order, reinstall, snapshots). It does not state when NOT to use it or name a polling alternative, so it falls just short of a 5.

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