check_reward

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the non-blocking behavior and the return contents (current reward, step, target reached), which is valuable context beyond the schema. It does not discuss error cases or explicitly state read-only behavior, but it is sufficient for a simple check tool.

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 focused sentences plus a compact argument list. Every sentence earns its place: the first defines the tool's purpose, and the second conveys essential non-blocking behavior and return fields.

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 two-parameter read-only check tool, the description is largely complete: it states the check condition, the non-blocking nature, and the returned information. It could more explicitly differentiate from sibling wait/check tools, but the current level is adequate for reliable selection and invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The provided arg descriptions ('The run to check', 'The reward threshold') add minimal meaning and mostly restate the parameter names. This is adequate but not rich; no format, units, or validation guidance is given.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Check if mean cumulative reward reached a target threshold.' This uniquely distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_step, check_completion, and check_checkpoint, which target different resources.

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 statement 'Always returns instantly with current reward, step, and whether the target was reached' provides clear context that this is a non-blocking polling tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops 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.