get_process_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the core behavior (checking running status, returning exit code) but does not disclose edge-case behavior such as invalid handles or error conditions. This is a moderate gap for a status-check tool.

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 concise sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose and return information. No filler or redundancy, making it highly efficient.

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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does and the key return concept (exit code if finished). It doesn't specify the exact response format or invalid-handle behavior, but the core functionality is sufficiently covered.

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 covers 100% of the parameter details, including a description of 'handle' as 'Process handle from start_process'. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 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 tool's function: checking whether a started process is still running and retrieving its exit code if finished. The verb 'check' and resource 'process status' are specific, and the reference to 'started process' distinguishes it from siblings like list_processes or read_process_output.

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 after a process has been started via start_process, and the schema parameter references start_process, providing clear context. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives like list_processes or read_process_output, but the purpose is distinct enough that an agent could infer when to use it.

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