analysis_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, providing strong safety signals. The description adds that the status includes frame count and duration, which is useful context but doesn't disclose error handling or lifecycle states. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 one sentence, front-loaded with the action, and contains no filler. It's appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 low complexity, strong annotations, and presence of an output schema, the one-sentence description is sufficient to define the tool's purpose and key output. No critical information is missing for a read-only status lookup.

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 coverage for the single parameter is 0%; the description does not explain analysis_session_id beyond the tool description's reference to 'an analysis session'. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds no additional meaning about accepted formats, required context, or how to obtain the ID.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), names the resource ('status of an analysis session'), and adds concrete return elements ('frame count and duration'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like analysis_summary or capture_status.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving session status, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this instead of related tools (e.g., capture_status, analysis_summary). No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given, so it's clear but not fully guided.

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