ue_render_status

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

With no annotations, the description discloses important behavior: success checking based on files, and wait_seconds parameter causing waiting and progress reporting. It doesn't mention permissions or side effects, but it's a read-only operation implied by 'stato'.

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 short, front-loaded with the purpose, and uses a clear bullet-like format for arguments. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 3 parameters and no output schema, it explains parameters and key behavior. It doesn't specify the return format, but the concept of 'succeeded' and log lines is sufficient. Could be slightly more explicit about return values, but overall adequate.

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 tool description provides detailed meaning for all three parameters: tail_lines (log lines), uproject (project reference, defaults to last), wait_seconds (wait and report progress). This fully compensates and adds clarity.

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 it checks the status of a render started with ue_render_sequence, with a specific nuance about success based on files rather than exit code. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that start rendering or check other statuses.

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 explicitly mentions the tool is for render status after ue_render_sequence, and explains the behavior of wait_seconds. However, it doesn't compare to other status tools like ue_status, but the context is clear enough for usage.

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