Get Tidy3D status / 读取 Tidy3D 状态

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the default safety profile is well covered. The description adds the 'allowlisted' qualifier, hinting that only certain status fields are exposed, but it does not explain what is excluded or that status values can change over time. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 a single compact bilingual sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource, and the 'allowlisted' qualifier adds meaningful scope without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a simple one-parameter, read-only status tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description is nearly complete. The only gap is the lack of explicit workflow placement (e.g., that it should be called after start_simulation), but the tool's purpose and scope are sufficiently clear.

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 100% and task_id is already documented as the Tidy3D task identifier. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action ('read') and resource ('allowlisted status fields for a Tidy3D task'), making the tool's core function obvious. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, though the focus on 'status' distinguishes it from download/read-artifact tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to poll status after start_simulation or how it relates to download_simulation_result. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are present, so the agent must infer usage from the tool name and schema alone.

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