Retrieve the status, recent activity, changed files, and final result of a delegated Claude agent. Optionally wait up to 10 seconds for completion, with tasks persisting across restarts.
Read Claude agent status, recent activity, changed files, and final result. Optionally wait up to 10 seconds. Tasks persist across Codex restarts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | Yes | Agent ID returned by spawn or ask_claude. | |
| wait_seconds | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for safety. It states the operation is read-only, discloses the optional wait behavior, and adds a meaningful behavioral fact: tasks persist across Codex restarts. It does not cover idempotency or whether reading consumes or moves the task state, but it provides several concrete observations beyond the strict minimum.
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 three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then augmenting with the optional wait and persistence detail. There is no filler or repetition; every sentence contributes new, actionable information.
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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description captures the required agent_id concept, the optional wait limit, the read-only nature, and the persistence behavior. It mentions the pieces of data returned without defining their structure, but the absence of an output schema makes this acceptable. It lacks failure/error handling notes, but the essential context is present.
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 only ~50% (agent_id has a description, wait_seconds does not). The description compensates for the missing wait_seconds semantics by explaining that the tool can 'wait up to 10 seconds,' which also aligns with the schema's minimum 0 and maximum 10. The agent_id parameter is already well described in the schema, so this level of compensation is adequate.
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 uses the specific verb 'Read' and identifies the resource as 'Claude agent status, recent activity, changed files, and final result.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as 'spawn_claude_agent' (creating), 'cancel_claude_agent' (cancelling), and 'wait_claude_agents' (waiting), without needing to consult their schemas.
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 clear context — it reads an agent's status and can optionally wait — but it never references sibling tools like 'wait_claude_agents' or states when to use this tool over the others. There are no along explicit when-not or alternative conditions; usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.