treeflow_get_training_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. 'Consulta' conveys a read-only intent and the description reveals returned content (status and metrics), but it does not discuss side effects, authentication needs, or behavior when no training exists. This is adequate but not deeply transparent.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, the resource, and the possible output types efficiently.

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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys purpose, required input, and response content. It leaves alternative routing and edge cases implicit, but nothing essential for correctly invoking the tool is missing.

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 already covers the sole parameter tree_id at 100% with 'ID del bot/árbol', so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the NLU-training context and does not provide additional format, constraints, or examples for the parameter.

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?

Description uses a specific verb 'Consulta' plus a specific resource 'estado actual del entrenamiento NLU de un bot' and enumerates expected output (en progreso, completado, métricas). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like treeflow_trigger_training (starts training) and treeflow_list_training_history (historical record).

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 word 'actual' implies this is for checking current training status rather than history, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or name any exclusions. Usage context is present but only implied, not directly stated.

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