check_tasks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions what statuses are shown (running, completed, failed), which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only/non-destructive, nor does it disclose any potential side effects, rate limits, or staleness considerations. This is a moderate gap for a monitoring tool.

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 concise at two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then what it shows, then when to use it. No wasted words or redundant detail.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description covers the purpose, the content returned (statuses), and the intended use case. It is fully sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the 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?

The sole parameter status_filter is fully documented in the input schema, including its enum values and default. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 the status of all deployed Claude Code agents, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_task_output, cancel_task, and dispatch_task by focusing on status monitoring rather than output retrieval, mutation, or creation.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to monitor progress of background agents,' providing a clear when-to-use scenario. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools explicitly, but the sibling context makes the usage boundaries reasonably clear.

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