Get the answer to an earlier task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains return states (answer vs. pending), the parent-task naming behavior for subtasks, and the inputId for media attachments. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, but the verb "Check whether" strongly implies it.

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 compact and every sentence earns its place: purpose, parameter constraint, return behavior, media-attachment note, and alternative routing. The most important scoping information is front-loaded.

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?

Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates well. It covers invocation constraints, expected return values, the pending state, subtask-specific behavior, media attachment handling, and the relevant sibling alternative. An agent has enough to select and call this tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by explaining the relationship between task_id/subtask_id and their originating tools (send_task/append_subtask), and by imposing the crucial exactly-one constraint that the schema itself does not encode.

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 begins with a specific verb ("Check whether") and names the exact resource (the answer to a task sent via send_task or a subtask appended via append_subtask). It distinguishes itself from get_task by clarifying scope: answer to a single task/subtask vs. whole task including subtasks.

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?

It explicitly states "Pass exactly one of task_id or subtask_id," which is critical guidance given both parameters are optional in the schema. It also names the alternative tool get_task and gives the exact condition for using it instead: when the whole task including every subtask is needed.

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