Broadcast progress

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the dual nature of the tool—querying status and canceling running broadcasts—and notes cancellation applies only while running. However, it does not elaborate on cancellation side effects, output shape, or error behavior, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 sentences, each earning its place. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the cancellation capability is stated without any filler or redundancy.

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?

The description names what the tool reports and its cancel feature, and the schema covers both parameters. However, since there is no output schema, more detail about the expected response shape, such as fields included in per-recipient results or job state, would make the tool easier to invoke and interpret correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful domain context by linking to broadcast_message and clarifying that cancellation applies to running broadcasts, but it does not materially improve on the schema's already clear parameter descriptions for job_id and cancel.

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 identifies the tool as reporting progress and per-recipient results for broadcasts started with broadcast_message, and also mentions its cancellation capability. This distinguishes it from related sibling tools like broadcast_message and whatsapp_status.

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 gives clear context: use this tool after starting a broadcast with broadcast_message to monitor or cancel it. It does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternative status tools, but the broadcast-specific framing makes the intended usage evident.

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