get_analysis_status

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

Although no annotations are provided, the description discloses a key behavioral aspect: that this tool is a read-only status check and that results from other tools may be incomplete if analysis hasn't finished. This adds value beyond the schema, which has no properties. It does not describe the output format, but the output schema exists (see context), so the description need not repeat that.

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 two short sentences, with the key purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and a useful caution in the second. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with no parameters and a simple boolean status check, the description is complete enough. The warning about incomplete results adds important context for the AI agent. The output schema exists, so return values don't need to be described. It could mention what 'running' state implies, but the warning covers that adequately.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description has no parameters to explain. The schema is empty, and the description correctly omits parameter details. With no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate since the description doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 checks whether IDA's auto-analysis has completed, using a specific verb ('check') and a clear resource ('auto-analysis status'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on analysis progress, not on reading or modifying data.

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 implies when to use this tool: before relying on results from other tools, as it warns that tools may return incomplete results if analysis is still running. However, it doesn't explicitly list alternative tools or say when NOT to use it, but the guidance is clear enough for typical usage.

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