Reflect: Get Suite Execution Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds no behavioral context beyond 'get status' and does not disclose output shape, possible status values, or error behavior, but it does not contradict the 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 short, front-loaded with the purpose, and free of fluff. The duplicated parameter list is somewhat redundant with the schema, but it is not wordy or distracting.

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 two-parameter, read-only status lookup with annotations covering safety, the description is mostly sufficient. However, with no output schema, it leaves return-value shape and possible status values unspecified.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description only repeats the schema's parameter definitions without adding format, constraints, or relationship context between suiteId and executionId.

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 a specific action ('Get the status') and resource ('reflect suite execution'), with the two identifying IDs. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling status-related tools like reflect_get_test_status or reflect_list_suite_executions.

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?

Usage is implied: call this tool to retrieve the status of a specific Reflect suite execution. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over related tools, nor any note about how to obtain valid suiteId/executionId values or that executionId may come from a prior execution.

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