Reflect: Get Test Status

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond 'get status'—for example, whether this is suitable for polling, how errors are represented, or what status values may be returned.

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 core description is a single clear sentence, and the parameter listing is short. However, the parameter block duplicates the input schema and does not add unique value, which keeps it from being a perfect 5.

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?

With no output schema, the description does not explain what a status result contains, what statuses are possible, or how the agent should use the response. It also does not connect to the broader reflect workflow (e.g., obtaining an executionId from reflect_run_test). The tool is simple, but key context is missing.

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% for the single executionId parameter, and the description repeats the schema's wording almost verbatim. It adds no additional semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb ('get') and resource ('status of a reflect test execution'), and the tool name and title reinforce this. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from closely related sibling tools like reflect_get_suite_execution_status or bearq_get_task_status, so it stops short of a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as reflect_get_suite_execution_status for suite-level status or other status-checking tools. There is no mention of typical workflows like polling after reflect_run_test, nor any exclusion criteria.

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