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 behavioral burden. It discloses the useful non-blocking trait ('without waiting for the worker'), but it does not state whether the snapshot is cached/stale, what happens if the task_id is unknown, what permissions are needed, or what the response contains.

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 no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the gaps in behavior and parameter explanation rather than fully earning its place as a complete definition.

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?

This is a low-complexity read tool, but it has no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required parameter. The description communicates the non-blocking behavior but leaves out return values, error behavior, and parameter meaning, which are not covered elsewhere.

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 schema has 0% description coverage and there is one required parameter, task_id. The description never mentions task_id or its meaning, so it adds no semantic guidance beyond the parameter's self-descriptive name.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Read the current task snapshot.' The phrase 'without waiting for the worker' distinguishes it from the blocking sibling wait_task, though it does not explicitly name or contrast with other status-oriented siblings like get_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 description implies when to use this tool through the contrast with waiting for the worker, suggesting non-blocking status checks. However, it does not state when to prefer this over siblings such as get_result, get_task_changes, or get_events, nor does it give explicit exclusions.

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