check_timer

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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds substantial context beyond them: how minimum_met relates to the original min_seconds, how revised minima are compared, that errors do not establish elapsed time, and that explicit stop requests must be honored immediately. This is rich, non-obvious 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 long unbroken paragraph. While most sentences carry behavioral rules, some are repetitive (both conditions are stated more than once), and there is no formatting or grouping to help scanning. Adequate but not tight.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered. The description thoroughly explains the timing logic and error behavior, but omits how to obtain the timer_id and the relationship to start_timer, leaving an agent to infer it.

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% and the single required parameter timer_id has no description in the schema. The tool description never explains what timer_id is, where it comes from (presumably start_timer), or its format, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 opens with 'Check the saved timer...' which is a specific verb and resource, and clarifies the two conditions (minimum duration and task completion) that the check evaluates. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling start_timer, so 4 rather than 5.

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 states when to call: after long tool calls, at phase changes, and immediately before a completion response. It also gives behavioral constraints (avoid idle waiting, rapid polling, redundant tests) but never names alternative tools or a when-not-to-use case, so 4.

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