check_task_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that a result is returned only once the task is complete, which is genuinely useful, but it says nothing about what status values exist, whether the call is a safe read, or what happens for an unknown or expired task_id.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the return semantics. There is no filler and nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 single-parameter, non-mutating tool with no output schema, the definition is close to adequate: it signals the result is conditional on completion. It is still thin on the polling-versus-blocking decision and on the status domain, which an agent needs to act on the response.

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 100%, so the sole parameter is documented in the schema itself, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds no parameter detail, and it does not resolve the naming mismatch between the 'task_id' parameter and the schema text calling it 'the intent_id returned by dispatch_task'.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Check status of a previously dispatched task') and adds the return behavior ('status and result if complete'). However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling wait_for_result, which is the primary alternative an agent must choose between for the same resource.

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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase 'previously dispatched task', which suggests calling it after dispatch_task. There is no explicit statement of when to poll with this tool versus blocking with wait_for_result, and no mention of polling cadence or when to give up.

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