claude_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return values but does not explicitly state that the tool is non-destructive (read-only) or mention any prerequisites, side effects, or rate limits. The 'Check' verb implies read-only, but this is not confirmed.

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, and contains no redundant or extraneous information. Every word contributes to clarity.

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 the tool has 2 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the action, return values, and the optional tailBytes parameter. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning the default tail size or that it returns only the last portion of output.

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 50% with only tailBytes having a description. The description adds context for jobId (identifies the job) and aligns with tailBytes. However, the description does not elaborate on the format or constraints of jobId beyond the schema's 'string' type.

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 checks a background job's status and recent output, specifying the returned fields (status, exit code, tail of stdout/stderr). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on checking a specific job rather than listing or starting jobs.

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 implies usage for checking a known job, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus claude_jobs (e.g., to list all jobs) or claude_start (to start a new job). No when-not-to-use or alternatives are mentioned.

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