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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations, especially 'Never spawns the Qoder CLI,' which explains a meaningful behavioral guarantee that annotations alone do not convey.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose ('Liveness check') and then add the key behavioral details. No redundant or unnecessary wording.

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 no-parameter, read-only, idempotent liveness tool, the description covers what it does, what it returns (server version and workspace roots), and what it avoids doing (spawning the CLI). Nothing essential is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The empty schema fully covers this, and the description correctly focuses on behavior rather than parameters.

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 states a specific purpose: a liveness check that reports server version and accepted workspace roots. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tools, which are about canceling, running, statusing, and replying to Qoder operations.

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 when you need a lightweight liveness/health check. It doesn't explicitly discuss alternatives or when not to use it, but for a tool this simple, the context is sufficient.

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

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so mutation and idempotency are covered. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond those annotations by explicitly stating it stops the process tree the job started, which clarifies the destructive scope.

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 filler. Every word contributes to the core action and its scope.

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 one-parameter cancellation tool with no output schema, the description covers the main effect but omits details like whether cancellation is synchronous, what happens if the job is already finished, and what the agent should expect in the response. It is adequate but not fully specified.

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%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented jobId parameter. It only says 'Stop a running job' without explaining the jobId format, where to obtain it, or whether it must reference a currently running job vs. any known job.

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 ('Stop') and a clear resource ('a running job and the process tree it started'), so an agent can tell this is a cancellation tool. It does not explicitly compare itself to siblings like qoder_run or qoder_status, but the action is distinct enough to avoid confusion.

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 phrase 'a running job' implies the tool is for jobs that are currently executing, which gives some usage context. However, it does not state when to prefer this over qoder_status or qoder_reply, nor does it mention exclusions such as completed or queued jobs.

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

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

Annotations already declare non-read, non-idempotent, open-world behavior; the description adds that the session id stays server-side, that the jobId must belong to a finished job, and that a new jobId is returned. This gives useful state-transition context without contradicting the annotations.

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?

Three sentences with no filler; the action, precondition, and return value are front-loaded and each sentence adds a distinct piece of information. It is short but substantive.

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 covers the core lifecycle (finished job -> follow-up jobId) and the server-side session behavior. It does not specify error behavior, whether waitSeconds is honored as a blocking wait, or how model/reasoningEffort affect execution, but for a tool with no output schema and existing annotations it is reasonably complete.

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 documentation only covers jobId (20%), and the description enriches that by specifying it must come from a finished job. It does not explain the required `prompt` or the optional `model`, `waitSeconds`, and `reasoningEffort`, leaving those to be inferred from parameter names and sibling context.

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?

States a specific verb ('start a follow-up turn') and a resource ('existing session'), and clarifies the key input-output relationship: a finished job's jobId produces a new jobId. This distinguishes it from siblings like qoder_run (new sessions) and qoder_status, so an agent can tell what the tool is for.

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?

Clear context is provided: use it when continuing an existing session with a follow-up turn, and the input must be a finished job. It does not explicitly name or exclude alternatives such as qoder_run or qoder_cancel, which weakens routing guidance, but the 'existing session' scope makes the intended use evident.

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

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

Annotations are present (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false), so the bar is lowered. Description adds critical context: returns jobId immediately, runs in background, and clarifies that 'execute' tier may edit files while 'consult' is read-only. This goes beyond annotations and covers key behaviors.

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 front-load the core purpose and async nature, then immediately reference qoder_status and tier semantics. Zero fluff, each sentence 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?

With 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the critical use case: starting a run, getting jobId, polling for result. Schema documents all parameters, so the description needn't repeat them. The description is missing explicit mention of failure modes or limits, but given the async pattern and schema richness, it is sufficiently complete.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by explaining tier meaning (consult read-only, execute may edit) directly, which supplements the schema's simple 'Permission tier' description. It also clarifies async behavior tied to the jobId return.

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?

States a specific verb ('Start a new Claude Code session') with a clear resource ('workspace'), and explicitly differentiates from siblings by mentioning async jobId return and qoder_status for polling. The tier semantics (consult vs execute) further disambiguate the tool's scope.

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?

Provides explicit guidance to use qoder_status for polling results, and clarifies tier meaning. Does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternatives beyond qoder_status, but the context is clear enough for the primary flow.

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

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

The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: events are incremental via cursor, and the final answer is returned when the run completes. It aligns with readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true and adds meaningful context about how polling behaves.

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?

Three concise sentences, each with a distinct job: state the purpose, explain cursor behavior, and describe the completion result. No wasted words, and the most important 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?

For a simple polling tool with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior: progress, result, incremental events, and final answer. It does not detail event shape or error behavior, but given the annotations and simple parameter set, it is reasonably complete.

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 only 33%, but the description clarifies the cursor's purpose beyond the schema's 'Last event sequence number seen.' jobId is self-evident, and waitSeconds is weakly inferable by name, but its exact polling semantics are not described.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Poll a job for progress and its result.' It is specific about the tool's role but does not explicitly differentiate it from siblings like qoder_reply or qoder_run, so it stops short of a full 5.

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 the usage context well: it is for polling after a job has been started, and 'Pass the cursor from the previous call' indicates repeated polling. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is clear enough.

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