delegate_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states the operation is non-blocking and enumerates the behavioral scope: state, steps taken, tool calls, background process liveness, and log tail. It does not cover edge cases like invalid job_id or whether the call is read-only, but the wording strongly implies a safe inspection operation.

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 front-loaded sentence with a colon that cleanly introduces a specific list of what the status check returns. Every clause adds useful information, and there is no redundant or filler wording.

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 2-param status tool with no output schema, the description covers the key invocation context and return content well: state, steps, tool calls, background processes, and log tail. It lacks formal response structure and error behavior, but those are minor for an agent deciding whether and how to call this tool.

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 50%: only log_lines has a description, while job_id is bare. The description gives contextual meaning to job_id via 'a delegated job' and matches log_lines through 'tail of its log', but it does not add detailed parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. This is adequate but not compensative for the undocumented job_id.

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 'Check' and names the resource ('a delegated job') while enumerating exactly what the status check covers: state, step count, tool calls, background process liveness, and log tail. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like delegate_start, delegate_cancel, or delegate_result.

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 phrase 'without blocking' implies it is meant for non-blocking async status monitoring, which is useful context. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer delegate_status over delegate_result or when to consider delegate_cancel, nor does it state any exclusions.

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