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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it operates on the signed-in VibeFix account and reports which of three lifecycle states the repair is in, which helps an agent interpret a status-polling call rather than a mutation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose before the parameter hint. Every clause earns its place and nothing is padded.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and the annotations cover the read-only safety profile. The description is complete for a single-parameter status poll, with only a minor gap around whether/how often it should be re-polled.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema coverage is 100% — the schema already says 'From list_projects.' The description repeats that sourcing hint without adding format, scoping, or error semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Report the current state of one project') and enumerates the exact conditions reported (running / awaiting approval / finished). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like assess_broken_app and get_fix_options, which concern diagnosing and choosing fixes rather than reading repair state.

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 tells the agent where the parameter comes from ('Use the project id from list_projects') but gives no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance — it never says when to call this versus get_fix_options or assess_broken_app. Usage is only implied by the scope ('one project').

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