hebbrix_extraction_status

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

Even without annotations, the description thoroughly discloses the polling lifecycle: transient statuses (queued/processing/indexing_pending), terminal outcomes (completed with memories, failed with error), and expiration after retention window. This is valuable behavioral context beyond any structured annotation.

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 sentences: purpose, return behavior, and expiration warning. Every sentence contributes distinct information, and the most important fact (polling) is front-loaded. No fluff.

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?

Although it lacks parameter details, the output schema exists to cover return values. The description covers the polling behavior, terminal states, error cases, and job expiration, making it sufficiently complete for a status-polling 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain job_id or collection_id at all. The parameter names are only mildly self-explanatory, and the description fails to clarify how collection_id is used. It does not add meaningful value beyond the schema's basic type and default.

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 polls a smart-ingestion job, with a specific verb ('Poll') and resource. It further distinguishes itself by referencing that the job comes from hebbrix_remember(extract=True), making it unique among the listed siblings.

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 implicitly says when to use the tool (after hebbrix_remember with extract=True) and gives operational guidance (poll promptly). It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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