compute_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains that the tool is non-blocking and details the return values including pending, status, result, and exception. This gives a clear picture of behavior.

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 concise at 6 lines, structured with Args, Returns, Examples. Every part is informative with no unnecessary text.

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 simple single-parameter tool and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the parameter, return values, and usage pattern, leaving no gaps for an AI agent.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates fully. It explains that task_ids are list of UUID strings from specific submission tools and provides an example usage, adding meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool checks the status of Compute tasks, non-blocking. It uses a specific verb 'check' and resource 'status of Compute tasks', distinguishing it from siblings like compute_submit which submit tasks.

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 specifies that task_ids should come from compute_submit or compute_batch_submit, implying context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool vs alternatives like task_wait, which would be a blocking equivalent.

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