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

Annotations already establish that this is read-only, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds important behavior beyond that: it waits a few seconds for the next step and returns incremental steps, the circuit drawing, and run information, which is useful for an agent to know.

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 short and includes only relevant details, but the opening sentence is grammatically awkward and obscures the tool's purpose. The Args section is clear enough, but the overall structure is not well 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?

For a two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description does explain the parameters and broadly describes return contents and long-poll behavior. It remains incomplete because it does not clarify how this differs from sibling circuit tools or what exactly a 'draft' response contains.

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 carries the burden. It meaningfully explains `window` as the window id from build_circuit and `n` as the last step shown, compensating well for the bare schema, though it omits the meaning of `n`'s default value.

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 indicates this operates on a circuit window during circuit construction and returns draft/progress information, but it never states a clear verb or resource in plain terms. It also does not distinguish itself from siblings like circuit_progress or circuit_step, leaving the exact purpose somewhat vague.

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 implies usage while the circuit is being built and notes that `window` comes from build_circuit, which gives some context. However, it does not say when to use this instead of circuit_progress, circuit_step, or run_circuit, and offers no explicit exclusions.

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