Poll a Tidy3D cloud simulation to get its current status and actual cost when known.
Poll the status of a running or completed Tidy3D cloud task, and its real cost once known.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes | The task_id to check |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.20Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It reveals that the tool polls status and that cost may only be available 'once known', implying a non-blocking read operation. However, it does not disclose error conditions, whether it blocks, or what happens if the task ID is invalid, which would be useful for an agent.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It states the primary action and an important nuance (cost availability) efficiently, and every word earns its place.
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?
This is a simple tool with one parameter, but there is no output schema and no annotations. The description does not specify the return format (e.g., what status values look like, cost format, whether it returns a JSON object) or any error handling. An agent would not know what to expect from the result, which is a significant gap for a polling tool.
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 schema already provides a description for task_id ('The task_id to check'), covering 100% of parameters. The tool description does not add any further meaning or usage details for the parameter, so it adds no value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.
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 states the action ('Poll the status'), the resource ('a running or completed Tidy3D cloud task'), and an additional outcome ('real cost once known'). This verb-resource pair is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like AxTidy3D_start_simulation or AxMeep_get_simulation_status without ambiguity.
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 provides clear context: it is for checking status of Tidy3D cloud tasks, which implies it is used after starting a simulation. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., vs. AxMeep_get_simulation_status). This is a minor gap but not misleading.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.