status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses the return fields and possible process states (running/completed/timed_out), which goes beyond the schema. It does not mention error behavior, but for a read-only status check, the non-mutating nature is implied.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main verb. The first sentence states the action and object, the second lists key return fields. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 status tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description covers the main behavioral aspects and return values. It omits error handling (e.g., invalid pid) and the precise effect of 'tail_bytes', but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage). The description does not explain the 'tail_bytes' parameter or its relationship to output; it only mentions 'tail output' and 'recent output' without connecting them to the parameter. 'pid' is self-explanatory, but 'tail_bytes' is under-specified.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and identifies the resource ('background process state, exit code, and tail output'). It also enumerates return values (running/completed/timed_out, duration, total bytes captured, truncation status, recent output), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishing it from siblings like run, start, send_signal, send_input, and list_processes.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (checking background process status) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Sibling tool names make the differentiation evident, yet there is no direct 'use this instead of that' guidance.

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