host_request_status

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral context, and it does add that the receipt remains readable after client timeout or host restart. However, it does not state permission requirements, error behavior, or whether reads are side-effect free beyond the implied read framing.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It communicates the core purpose and an important edge-case scenario efficiently.

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?

The output schema covers return values, but the tool has two required, undocumented parameters and no annotations. For that combination, the description is too thin: it omits parameter semantics and does not distinguish this tool from similar status/read siblings.

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%, and both session_id and request_id are required, so the description should compensate by explaining their meaning. It does not mention either parameter, leaving their relationship and expected formats 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: reading an execution receipt for a host request. It is clearer than a bare title, but it does not distinguish this tool from nearby siblings such as native_request_status, printer_request_status, or job_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 phrase 'including after a client timeout or host restart' implies a useful usage scenario, but it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over the similar status/request tools in the sibling list. The guidance is present but left largely implicit.

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