check_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does well. It discloses that results are archived locally, that polling is free, that the job runs independently of polling, and that repeat calls are served from disk. These are meaningful behavioral traits beyond the schema.

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?

Three sentences, each adding distinct value: core action, result handling, and cost/behavior semantics. The most important information is front-loaded and there is no wasted text.

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 polling/status tool with three well-documented parameters, the description covers the essential behaviors: what happens on completion, persistence, and cost. An output schema is absent, but the description does not fully describe the result structure or error cases. Mostly complete, with minor gaps.

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%, so the baseline is 3 even without extra parameter detail. The description adds only general context about waiting and results, while the schema already documents format, wait_s, and activity_id. It does not materially enhance parameter understanding.

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 the tool checks on a submitted analysis and can wait for completion, with the result returned once finished. It identifies the resource (submitted analysis) and the action (check/wait), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like get_result_slice. This is clear but lacks direct sibling distinction.

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 gives practical guidance: polling is free, the job runs regardless of polling, and repeated calls after collection are served from disk at no cost. This implies use after a submit_* call and encourages polling, but does not explicitly state when to prefer alternatives like get_result_slice. Clear context but no exclusions.

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