Full decode status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by explaining the status semantics: which terminal state counts as success and which states warrant error inspection. It stops short of describing polling behavior or how long results persist.

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?

Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is compressed to the edge of ambiguity ('inspect failed/cancelled errors') but still earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry the return-value burden; it describes the meaning of completed/ok, failed, and cancelled states but not the shape of the response or which fields carry error details. The job_id parameter is also left unexplained, leaving a modest gap for a status tool.

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?

There is one required parameter (job_id) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it or its expected form. With the schema providing no documentation, the description should have compensated but does not.

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+resource: reading full-decode progress/result, which is distinct from generic studio_status and studio_export_checkpoint. However, it never names the sibling tools it could be confused with, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

Gives a clear interpretive rule (only completed+ok means success; inspect failed/cancelled errors), which implies when to call it. But it never says when to prefer this over studio_status, studio_verify_export, or studio_cancel_verification, nor whether it should be polled or called once.

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