Beat Edit Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds genuinely new behavioral information: the request returns a single edit's status when an id is supplied, but degrades to a recent-list when it is omitted. It says nothing about polling frequency, terminal states, or how progress is reported.

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?

One short sentence that front-loads the primary use (check progress) and appends the conditional variant. No filler, nothing redundant with the schema.

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 minimal one-optional-parameter tool this covers the core contract, but with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description leaves the return shape and possible status values entirely unspecified for what is inherently a polling tool.

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% and the single optional parameter has no description, so the description must carry the meaning — and it does: the id selects a specific Beat Edit, and omitting it switches the call into a list operation. It still doesn't say what the id looks like (job id vs. edit id) or its format.

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 (check) and resource (a Beat Edit's progress), and additionally covers the list mode when no id is given. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like beat_edit or download_beat_edit, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

"With no id, list the recent ones" implies how to get the two different behaviors, which is useful routing within the tool. However, there is no guidance on when to call this versus beat_edit (start an edit) or download_beat_edit (fetch the result), which are the most likely confusions.

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