claude_code_check_result

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the returned states ('running/completed') and that a result is only available when done, but it omits details about error conditions, polling behavior, response structure, or whether the task result is cleared after being read.

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 single sentence that front-loads the action and then summarizes the output. Every clause contributes useful information with no redundancy or filler.

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 one-parameter polling tool, the description is concise and covers the core behavior, but since there is no output schema it should explain more about the return format and possible status values. 'The result if available' is vague and an agent may not know how to interpret the returned payload.

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 schema covers task_id fully with the description 'The task_id returned by claude_code_execute_async', so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and a clear resource ('status of an async Claude Code task'), and explicitly states the return value ('running/completed status and the result if available'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from the execute siblings by focusing on status checking rather than execution.

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 implies this tool is for polling an async task by mentioning 'async' and 'status', and the schema parameter references claude_code_execute_async. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria, leaving the usage context largely implicit.

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