agy_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists the return fields and does not state whether the operation is read-only, any authentication or permission requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects.

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 a clear verb and resource. It contains no filler or redundant content, making it appropriately concise.

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?

For a simple one-parameter status lookup, the description covers the basic function and an output schema exists to detail return values. However, it lacks usage context and behavioral details (e.g., whether it can be called for any job_id or if it has side effects), leaving some gaps in completeness.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description merely repeats 'job_id' without adding format, origin, or example details. It provides no additional meaning beyond the schema's property name and required flag, so it fails to compensate for low 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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and identifies the exact resource ('JobRecord') along with its key fields (status, exit code, error, timestamps) for a given job_id. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like agy_start, agy_cancel, and agy_result.

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 implies usage when a job's status is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as agy_result or agy_read. It does not mention exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the context implicit.

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