get_analysis_status

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

The description discloses that the tool returns status and progress, including the return fields. It advises periodic polling after analyze_project. No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It is transparent about the polling behavior, though it could mention potential errors or rate limits.

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 concise and well-structured, with bullet points for usage and a clear list of return fields. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and efficiently organized.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers the required context: the purpose, usage scenarios, and return structure. It is complete for the tool's simplicity.

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?

There are no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details. It is sufficient for a parameterless tool.

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 'Get the current analysis status and progress.' It specifies the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource, and differentiates from siblings like analyze_project by indicating it is used to monitor progress.

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 explicitly lists three use cases: polling progress, checking if analysis is running, and seeing the active phase. It provides clear context on when to use the tool, including after analyze_project.

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