ue_render_status

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

Given no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the key behavior of 'succeeded' based on file production, not exit code, and describes parameter effects (e.g., wait_seconds > 0 blocks and reports progress). Lacks mention of side effects or authorization, but acceptable for a status 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?

Description is concise, front-loaded with purpose, key behavioral note, then parameter details. Every sentence serves a purpose with no fluff.

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?

No output schema, and the description does not explicitly state what the tool returns beyond referring to 'succeeded' checking. The parameter descriptions are clear, but the return value or status format is implied, not specified. Could be more complete.

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 0%, but the description provides meaningful explanations for all three parameters (tail_lines, uproject, wait_seconds), adding context beyond type and default values.

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?

Description clearly states it provides status of a render started with ue_render_sequence, with a specific behavioral note about 'succeeded' checking files rather than exit code. It distinguishes from sibling tools by name and context, though a brief differentiation from ue_status would help.

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?

Indicates that this tool should be used after ue_render_sequence and explains the meaning of 'succeeded'. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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