get_wrap_up_session_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 meets it well. It discloses that the operation is metadata-only, read-only, that long-unupdated running records are projected as stale_running without mutating the record, and that no summary text or local path is returned. These are meaningful side-effect guarantees beyond a generic 'get'.

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 bilingual format doubles the length, but each language block is compact and purposeful, with key facts front-loaded: metadata-only, read-only, stale_running, and non-return of summary/path. There is no filler; the repetition is acceptable for multilingual tooling.

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 absence of annotations and a bare schema, the description delivers a complete operational picture: when to use it, which inputs are valid, what behavior to expect around stale states, and what is deliberately excluded. An output schema exists to define return fields, so nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke this 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does. It explains both parameters' roles: idempotency_key is caller-known and operation_id was returned by a prior call, and either can be used to query. It does not specify precedence or validation when both are supplied, but it provides enough context for correct invocation.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('读取/read metadata-only stage status') tied to a concrete resource (wrap_up_session), and clearly distinguishes itself from the mutation-oriented sibling wrap_up_session by stating it is read-only and metadata-only. It also states what it does not return (summary text or local project path), which further disambiguates it from retrieval tools like get_resume_brief.

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 explicitly names the triggering scenario: after a session-closeout transport timeout, using a caller-known idempotency_key or a returned operation_id. It also includes a clear when-not by excluding summary text and local path retrieval, so an agent knows this tool is for status checking, not content retrieval.

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