log_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read nature is covered. The description adds that the tool exposes state and sample count, which is helpful, but it does not explain behavior for invalid job IDs, empty telemetry data, or whether the job must be active.

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 concise sentence with no filler. The primary action and resource are front-loaded, making 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?

The tool is simple and the annotations cover its safety profile, but there is no output schema and the description does not describe the return shape beyond 'state and sample count.' Job ID semantics are also left undocumented, so an agent may need to infer how to obtain the ID.

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 only says 'telemetry job' in relation to job_id. It does not explain where the job_id comes from, what format it uses, or how to obtain it from log_start. The schema alone provides only the parameter name and type.

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 names a specific verb ('Read') and a clear resource ('state and sample count of a telemetry job'). This clearly distinguishes it from log_start, log_stop, and log_export, which are the most closely related 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?

The read-oriented wording makes the intended use reasonably obvious, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus log_start, log_stop, or log_export. There are no exclusions or alternative routing hints provided.

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