Check a delegated task

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating call. The description adds only that the task may be 'running or interrupted', but says nothing about return shape, polling cadence, or what happens with an unknown/expired id — modest value above the annotation.

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, action first and condition second, with no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back, yet it only hints at status via 'running or interrupted'. An agent still lacks the status vocabulary and the follow-up action (answer_task) once the task finishes.

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 0%, so the single taskId parameter is undocumented by the schema; the phrase 'by id' only restates that an identifier is required and adds no format, source, or sourcing guidance (e.g. where the id comes from). With just one obvious parameter this is adequate but thin.

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 (poll) and resource (a task by id), and the framing 'delegation' links it to the delegate_goal/answer_task family so it is distinguishable from the browser_* siblings. It is clear, though it stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with answer_task, the other task-oriented sibling.

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?

'Use when a delegation is still running or was interrupted' gives an explicit triggering condition rather than leaving usage implied. It names no exclusion or alternative (e.g. use answer_task once the task completes), so it is clear context without full when-not guidance.

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