feature_separate_batch_eval_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one non-obvious trait: "never uses network" (i.e., a safe, offline/local read). However, it never explicitly states read-only safety, permissions, or what the operation returns, so it only partially compensates for the absent 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?

Two short clauses, front-loaded with the action ("List cohorts...") and followed by the most decision-relevant constraint ("never uses network"). It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than genuinely 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But for a status tool among four near-neighbor siblings, the description is too thin to let an agent confidently choose it over check or insights, leaving a real ambiguity gap.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the empty schema already conveys.

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 states a verb+resource ("List cohorts and sample readiness"), but the domain terms are opaque and it does not distinguish this status tool from siblings like feature_separate_batch_eval_check or feature_separate_batch_eval_insights, which plausibly overlap in reporting readiness or evaluation 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the four sibling eval tools, nor any preconditions or exclusions. The agent is left to infer that this is a status/inspection call from the verb "List" alone.

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