check_research

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

No annotations provided, but description discloses behavior: returns table of all tasks without args, returns full report with job_id. Implies it is read-only and non-destructive. Could explicitly state it has no side effects, but current description is transparent enough.

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?

Description is well-structured with a summary, detailed behavior, usage context, and parameter documentation. Every sentence is necessary and adds value without repetition.

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 presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers return values. It mentions the research report and cited sources for the detail mode. Complete for the tool's complexity.

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 0%, but description fully explains the job_id parameter: omitting it lists all tasks, providing it returns full results. This adds complete meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 on research tasks started with start_research, differentiating list mode from detail mode. It explicitly contrasts with sibling tools like cancel_research and start_research.

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?

Explicitly says to use after start_research was interrupted or timed out, or to poll a long-running task. Provides clear context for when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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