check_step

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly discloses that the tool returns instantly and reports current step, reward, and target-reached status. It does not cover error conditions or side effects, but for a simple read-only check the disclosed behavior is substantial.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the instant-return behavior. Every sentence adds value, and there is no wasted text or redundant boilerplate.

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 simple two-parameter polling tool, the description covers the essential behavior and return contents, and the presence of an output schema means return structure need not be spelled out. It is slightly incomplete in not mentioning prerequisites or explicit alternative usage, but these are minor for this operation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. 'run_id: The run to check' and 'target_step: The step count target' add only slightly more than the schema's existing titles 'Run Id' and 'Target Step.' No constraints, formats, or clarifying details are provided, making the parameter guidance minimally useful.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Check if training reached a target step count.' It also adds the key distinction 'Always returns instantly,' which differentiates this from waiting siblings like wait_for_completion and wait_for_first_metrics.

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 phrase 'Always returns instantly' provides clear context that this is a non-blocking polling check rather than a wait operation. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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