get_continuous_hub_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies read-only behavior but does not explicitly state it. It mentions the session ID source but lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or potential side effects. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise and well-structured, with a clear one-line purpose, detailed return info, and a parameter note. Every sentence adds value, and the front-loading of the main verb and resource makes it easy to scan.

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 the presence of an output schema, the description appropriately omits return value details but provides a helpful high-level overview of metrics. It does not cover error conditions or invalid session scenarios, but for a monitoring tool this is sufficient.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description adds crucial context for the sole parameter 'session_id', specifying it is the ID returned by start_continuous_hub_tool. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions, though the format or constraints could be more explicit.

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 returns live status, metrics, progress, and output from a continuous hub session. While it implicitly distinguishes from siblings like start/stop/list, it does not explicitly differentiate from other 'get' tools (e.g., get_execution_results).

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 recommends calling periodically every 10-30 seconds for monitoring, providing concrete usage guidance. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives for other monitoring needs.

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