vibemap_get_generation_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the fact that it polls status (idempotent read), but does not elaborate on polling frequency, retry behavior, or potential return values. With annotations covering the core safety traits, the description adds modest value.

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 sentences, each essential: the first defines the purpose, the second specifies the input source. No wasted words, information is front-loaded.

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 is minimally complete for a simple polling tool with good annotations and schema. However, it lacks details on the response format (possible statuses, error conditions). Given the simplicity and the presence of readOnlyHint, a score of 3 is appropriate; it works but could be more thorough.

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 coverage is 100% (one parameter fully described). The description adds value by specifying that the sessionId comes from vibemap_analyze_codebase, which is not in the schema. This is helpful context beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states it polls status of a VibeMap AI generation task (reverse engineering or spec generation), using a sessionId. This is a specific verb+resource, and it differentiates from sibling tools which do other operations like listing, creating, or scanning.

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 clearly indicates when to use: after vibemap_analyze_codebase returns a sessionId. It provides a direct relation to the initiating tool, offering clear context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but there are no alternative polling tools among siblings, so the guidance is sufficient.

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