timps_kernel_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of explaining the tool's behavior. 'Check the status' implies a non-mutating query, and 'previously delegated' clarifies the expected run origin, but the description does not disclose output format, possible states, or whether the operation is non-blocking.

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 that directly conveys the tool's purpose and key parameter provenance. No filler or redundant information is present.

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 simple status-check tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It could be enhanced by noting what statuses are possible or whether it can be polled, but the basic use case is clear.

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?

The input schema already covers the single parameter with 100% description coverage. The description adds marginal value by linking the run_id to a previously delegated kernel run, but it does not provide meaningful semantics 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 action ('Check the status') and the resource ('a previously delegated kernel run'), with the key parameter run_id. It distinguishes itself from delegation tools by focusing on status retrieval, though it does not explicitly compare itself to sibling status-like tools.

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 'previously delegated kernel run' provides clear contextual guidance that this tool should be used after timps_delegate. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but the usage context is understandable for an AI agent.

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