get_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It fails to mention that the operation is read-only (safe) or any potential side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits. The description only states what is returned, not how it 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancies. Every word contributes to the core purpose: stating the action, resources, and required parameter. This is an optimal length for a simple tool.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential information about what it does and takes. However, it lacks details about the return structure (e.g., whether the response is a flat object or nested) and error cases, which would help the agent handle the output correctly.

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 input schema has 1 parameter (job_id) with 0% description coverage. The description merely mentions 'job_id' without adding format, source, or example values. It does not compensate for the lack of schema-level documentation, leaving ambiguity about valid inputs.

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 verb 'Return' and the resources 'status, plan, and per-tenant states' for a given 'job_id'. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'approve_plan' or 'start_orchestration' which serve different purposes.

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 for retrieving status but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives (e.g., when to use get_artifacts instead). No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name alone.

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