lira_analysis_status

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

With readOnlyHint already declaring the safety profile, the description adds real behavioral detail: the exact status vocabulary (including the non-obvious 'needs_user'), that a protocol summary is included only once the analysis has ended, and that wait_s blocks for up to N seconds. It does not say whether repeated polling is cheap or what 'needs_user' implies for follow-up action.

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 tight sentences that front-load the resource and status set, then the wait parameter. No filler, though the mid-sentence shift to the optional parameter is slightly abrupt.

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?

An output schema exists and readOnlyHint covers safety, so the description only needs to explain the wait and the state model — which it does for a one-optional-parameter polling tool. Minor omission: no guidance on what an agent should do on 'needs_user' or 'failed'.

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 0%, so the description must carry the single parameter — and it does, explaining that wait_s > 0 is a bounded blocking wait in seconds for a running analysis to end, with the default of 0 supplied by the schema. The only gap is that the timeout return state is not stated.

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 resource and scope: 'State of the last analysis started by this server', and enumerates the possible states plus the protocol-summary payload. An agent can tell it apart from data-retrieval siblings, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from lira_status or lira_analysis_protocol.

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 polling-after-run use case is only implied by the mention of wait_s and 'last analysis started by this server'; it never says to call this after lira_run_analysis or to use lira_analysis_protocol for the full protocol. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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