get_cycle_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world, so safety is covered. The description adds the 'preparation_only' capability tier and the backing API/authority endpoints, which is useful metadata, but it omits whether polling has side effects on job lifecycle, terminal states, or auth/session requirements despite a required sessionToken.

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?

A single sentence plus a bracketed metadata prefix; the core action is front-loaded and nothing is redundant. The capability/tier/API prefix is somewhat jargon-heavy but compact.

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 4-required-param polling tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the definition should at minimum say what status values come back and how polling terminates. It does neither, leaving the agent to guess at the return shape and lifecycle.

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?

All 4 parameters are required with 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains none of them—jobId is only hinted at by the word 'job.' With no compensating detail for sessionId, agentAddress, or sessionToken, the description leaves every parameter undocumented.

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 and resource: 'Poll the status of an asynchronous autopilot cycle job.' The 'autopilot cycle' scoping distinguishes it reasonably well from get_workflow_status and get_approval_status, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 'asynchronous' implies this is called after launching a cycle (e.g. autopilot_cycle), but no explicit when-to-use, when-to-stop, polling cadence, or alternative is given. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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