get_experiment_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered externally; the description's 'Poll' wording is consistent with repeated safe reads. It adds the return content (status plus progress percentage) but says nothing about terminal states, error behavior, or whether status can be stale — 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?

One short sentence with zero filler, front-loading the action and the resource. Nothing is wasted and nothing is buried.

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?

With no output schema, the description does carry the burden of conveying return values, and it does mention status and progress percentage. However, for a polling tool it omits the most decision-relevant details: the set of possible statuses, what progress percentage means (and whether it is null when not running), and how to proceed to results once complete.

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% for the single required parameter experiment_id, so the schema names it but explains nothing. The description does not compensate — it never says what an experiment_id is, where to obtain one (e.g., from list_experiments or create_experiment), or whether it must reference a running experiment.

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?

States a specific verb ('Poll') and resource ('an experiment's run status and progress percentage'), so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as get_experiment_results or get_experiment_logs, which also read per-experiment state.

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 'Poll' implies repeated calls while an experiment is running, which gives implicit usage context. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no routing to get_experiment_results, get_experiment_logs, or list_experiments, and no note about polling cadence or when to stop.

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