docswrite-get-post-status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the outcome vocabulary (publishing, completed/published, draft, scheduled, failed), the live URL, and the error field. It does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, or whether a failed job can be retried, but for a status-lookup operation the disclosure is solid.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence covers purpose, both identifier branches, and return values with no filler. Every clause 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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain returns — which it does by listing statuses, live URL and error. All three optional parameters are accounted for and both lookup modes are described, leaving nothing critical for an agent to guess.

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 100%, so the schema already explains job_id, post_id and connection_id in equivalent terms; the description largely restates those origins. It adds no syntax, format, or precedence guidance (e.g. what happens if both job_id and post_id are supplied), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb-plus-resource ('Check a publish', 'look up a post') and names two sibling tools (docswrite-publish-post, docswrite-list-posts) as the source of the identifiers, so an agent can distinguish it from those siblings without opening a schema. It also enumerates the possible status values, making the tool's job unambiguous.

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?

It clearly routes the agent: use job_id for a publish started by docswrite-publish-post, or post_id for a post from docswrite-list-posts. That is explicit branch selection, though it never states when not to use this tool or how it differs from docswrite-list-connections.

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