optimize_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It declares read-only behavior and lists all returned fields (run header, suggestion details including decision status), giving good insight into what the tool provides without side effects.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence is informative but slightly verbose listing fields; could be more concise. No wasted words overall.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate. It explains what the tool returns. However, it lacks context on how run_id is obtained, error handling for invalid IDs, and doesn't mention pagination or large runs, leaving some gaps.

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 only parameter, 'run_id', has no description in the schema (0% coverage). The tool description does not explain what run_id represents or how to obtain it (e.g., from optimize_runs), leaving the agent with minimal guidance beyond the integer type.

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 specific verb 'inspect' and the resource 'optimization run'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'optimize_runs' (lists runs) and 'optimize_scan' (scans) by focusing on a single run's details.

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 indicates this tool is for inspecting a single run in detail, providing context on its scope. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, such as when you would use 'optimize_scan' instead.

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