research_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does an excellent job disclosing key behavioral traits: it blocks execution, has timeout behavior, provides polling intervals, and explains the compact parameter's effect on token usage and output truncation. The only minor gap is lack of explicit rate limit or authentication requirement disclosure.

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 perfectly structured and concise: a clear purpose statement followed by well-organized parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information. The use of bullet-like formatting in the Args section makes it easily scannable while maintaining completeness.

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?

Given the tool's polling complexity, 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers all parameters' meanings, explains the blocking/timeout behavior, provides usage guidance, and mentions the output schema handles return values, leaving no significant 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all 5 parameters' semantics beyond their types: notebook_id is a UUID, poll_interval is seconds between polls with default, max_wait is maximum seconds with special 0 value meaning single poll, compact controls truncation to save tokens, and task_id is optional for specific task polling.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('Poll research progress') and resource ('research'), distinguishing it from siblings like research_start (initiates research) or studio_status (checks studio status). It explicitly mentions blocking behavior and timeout conditions, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: to monitor research completion after starting it, with clear alternatives implied (e.g., use compact=False for full details). It also specifies when not to use it (if you only want a single poll without waiting, set max_wait=0), making usage context very clear.

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