gemini_cli_check_result

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It partially delivers by stating the two statuses and that the result is available conditionally, but it omits failure/error states, whether repeated polling is safe or expected, and any timeout or staleness behavior. For an unannotated tool this is a noticeable gap.

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?

Two sentences with zero wasted words. The core action ('Check the status') is front-loaded, and the second sentence efficiently discloses the return behavior.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), and the description adequately covers main purpose and return values. However, without an output schema it leaves the exact response shape undocumented, and failure states are unaddressed, so the agent may not know how to interpret an unsuccessful task.

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 description need not add parameter detail; the task_id parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, warranting the baseline 3.

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 states a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('status of an async Gemini CLI task'), and clarifies it returns 'running/completed status and the result if available.' This semantically distinguishes it from the execute siblings, though it does not explicitly name them.

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?

Usage is implied: checking status is the natural follow-up to gemini_cli_execute_async, and the schema's task_id description references that sibling. However, the main description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of when to prefer gemini_cli_execute instead.

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