check_pipeline_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful guidance that this is a polling-style status check, but it does not describe what the status response contains, what statuses exist, or behavior for invalid or completed job IDs.

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 three short sentences with no filler. Purpose is first, usage context follows, and the parameter note is minimal and relevant.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple one-parameter status check and covers when to call it and how often. However, since there is no output schema, the absence of return-value or status-semantics information leaves an agent uncertain about how to interpret the result.

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 only provides the parameter name and type, while the description explains that job_id is 'returned by any auto_ pipeline tool'. This adds crucial provenance information beyond the schema and tells the agent where to obtain the value.

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 tool checks the status of a running pipeline and scopes it to 'any auto_ pipeline', so an agent understands the resource and action. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling check_transcription_status, but the 'auto_ pipeline' phrasing narrows the intended use enough.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: after starting any auto_ pipeline, and it recommends polling every 15-30 seconds. It does not state when not to use it or mention alternative status tools, but the context is clear.

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