worker_status

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes return fields (status, summary, changed files, verification result, artifact paths) and behavior difference with/without task_id. It implies read-only nature for polling, which is adequate.

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 concise sentences with front-loaded purpose. No superfluous words. Each sentence adds value.

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 simplicity (1 optional param, no output schema, no annotations), description covers key behaviors, use case, and mentions sibling (worker_delegate). Could add that it's read-only, but otherwise complete.

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 has no description for task_id (0% coverage). Description adds meaning: with task_id returns detailed info, without lists recent tasks. This compensates for schema gap, though lacks format/constraints.

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 delegated worker tasks, with specific behaviors for with/without task_id. It distinguishes from siblings like worker_delegate (starts tasks) and worker_logs (gets logs).

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 says 'Use to poll a task started by worker_delegate.' This provides clear context for usage. Could mention when not to use (e.g., for logs use worker_logs), but the guidance is sufficient.

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