Write status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety. It describes the returned data (verdict and conflicts) but doesn't mention potential edge cases like job not found or whether it's a one-time check vs. pollable. The openWorldHint annotation adds some context but isn't elaborated.

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?

One sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, input, and output in a compact form.

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 there is no output schema, the description specifies what is returned (quality gate verdict and open conflicts), which is sufficient. It could mention error handling or whether the status is immediate, but these are not critical gaps given the simple nature of the tool.

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, job_id, is clearly described as 'job_id returned by cortex_write', explaining its provenance and usage. Schema coverage is 100%, and no additional clarification is needed.

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 reports the outcome of a queued write, specifically the quality gate verdict and open conflicts. It distinguishes itself from cortex_write by referencing that cortex_write returned a queued status, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling tool for differentiation.

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 implies usage after cortex_write returns a queued job, but doesn't explicitly state 'use this when you have a job_id from cortex_write' or contrast with alternatives like cortex_conflicts. The context is present but not made explicit.

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