bisect_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It never states that the operation is read-only, whether polling affects bisect state, or any permission/rate constraints; the only content it offers (returned fields) is already covered by the output schema.

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 sentence, no filler, and the most useful information (status/candidate count/culprit) is front-loaded. It is efficient, though arguably too terse to carry the missing behavioral and parameter context.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values, and for a one-parameter status check this is minimally viable. However, with no annotations and no usage or parameter context, it leaves meaningful gaps for an agent deciding when and how to call it.

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 0% for the single parameter, so the description is responsible for compensating and does not mention session_id or what a valid session id is. The field name is self-explanatory, which softens the gap, but no added meaning is provided.

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 gives a specific verb (show) and concrete bisect concepts (status, candidate count, culprit), making the tool's role legible without opening the schema. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like list_bisect_sessions or step_bisect.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is offered. With siblings such as step_bisect, run_bisect, and list_bisect_sessions, an agent would benefit from knowing this is a non-mutating poll of a single session, but nothing is stated about timing or alternatives.

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