aethis_generation_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds genuinely new context: tenant scoping plus an API key requirement, the server-authoritative nature of worker_lifecycle, and the caveat that a stale heartbeat alone does not imply worker death. That is exactly the kind of operational nuance annotations cannot convey.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the read-only purpose, then the return contract, then the retry caveat and auth requirement. No sentence is redundant, and the field enumeration is justified because no output schema exists.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned fields (generation_contract_version, telemetry_availability, worker_lifecycle, retry_readiness, progress, safe failure diagnostics), and it covers auth and tenant scoping. Nothing an agent needs to invoke and interpret this call is missing.

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?

With a single required parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents project_id fully; the description adds only that the lookup is tenant-scoped, not any syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource ('Check the current generation job for a project') and explicitly marks it as non-mutating ('without changing it'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like aethis_cancel_generation, aethis_generate_and_test, and aethis_refine. The enumerated return fields further pin down what the agent gets back.

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?

Gives concrete conditional guidance: 'Retry only when retry_readiness is ready; an old heartbeat alone does not prove worker death,' which tells the agent when a retry is justified. It does not name the sibling retry tool or state when-not-to-call this status tool, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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