ps_research_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It describes the returned session-state contents, but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, whether it has side effects, or what permissions are required.

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 a single efficient sentence that front-loads the resource and lists the relevant state fields. It is concise, though its terseness leaves several important details unaddressed.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is less critical, but the description still omits usage guidance and all parameter semantics for a 3-parameter tool. For an agent selecting among many research siblings, it is not complete enough.

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 tool has three parameters and 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It never mentions session_id, config_path, or periscope_path, adding no meaning beyond the bare parameter names.

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 names the resource and enumerates the session-state contents (sub-question tree, statuses/answers/evidence ids, turn history, rendered report), so an agent can tell this retrieves research-session status. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings such as ps_research_list or ps_research_step.

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 no when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not say whether to call this before/after ps_research_step, or how it relates to ps_research_list.

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