agy_check_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what information is checked but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, error conditions, or the nature of the response (e.g., partial results if task still running). For a status-check tool, this is minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the main purpose and lists key outputs. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose. However, it lacks detail about the return format, potential error scenarios, or behavior when the task is incomplete. While not critical, additional context would improve completeness.

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?

The input schema fully describes the task_id parameter with 100% coverage, including its origin. The description adds no additional parameter details, but the schema already provides sufficient meaning. Since the schema covers the parameter, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'checks' and the resource 'asynchronous task started with async: true'. It lists specific aspects (status, running duration, execution trace, results) that distinguish it from simpler status checks. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or state what it is not, so it lacks explicit differentiation.

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 async tasks but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like agy_get_status or codex_check_task. There is no mention of conditions, exclusions, or alternative tools. The agent is left to infer the appropriate context.

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