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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it is a 'read-only local run/job inspection; writes no files and uses no network.' This clarifies the scope and side effects, fully complementing the annotations.

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 reasonably structured with clear sections, but it contains redundancy: 'Use this when...' appears twice in slightly different forms. The mention of 'jobId' and 'includeLogs' also adds avoidable noise. It could be more concise.

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 read-only status tool with annotations, output schema, and full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, usage, and effects. It misses a direct explanation of the 'cwd' and 'format' parameters but is otherwise complete. The parameter name mismatch slightly detracts from completeness.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. However, the description says 'jobId selects a background run; includeLogs changes returned detail,' but the actual schema parameters are 'id' and 'format.' This misnames parameters and could confuse an agent into looking for parameters that do not exist, actively reducing clarity.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Read the latest or selected Axint run job record, including active child process IDs.' This is a specific verb+resource pairing. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly saying it 'does not start, rerun, or cancel work,' which separates it from axint.run and axint.run.cancel.

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 provides explicit usage context: 'Use this when a long xcodebuild run may still be active after an MCP timeout or client disconnect.' It also gives exclusions by stating what it does not do, serving as clear when-not-to-use guidance.

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