fcoh_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. 'Read' and the listing of outputs indicate a read-only operation and what to expect, but it does not address edge cases, error behavior, or whether the tool can return partial/in-progress results.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence states the action and object with no filler. Every word contributes to the description.

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 one-parameter status tool with no annotations or output schema, the description names the key return categories (status, geometry, artifact paths) and the action. It lacks explicit return-format details, but the low complexity makes the description reasonably complete.

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 schema contains a single undocumented job_id parameter and 0% coverage. The description provides context by implying job_id refers to a CAD generation job whose status is being read, but it does not explicitly define the parameter or its expected format/origin.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and identifies a clear resource: CAD generation status, measured geometry, and exported artifact paths. It clearly communicates what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like fcoh_build or fcoh_validate.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool relative to its siblings or how it fits into the CAD workflow. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., a job created by fcoh_build) or when a different tool would be more appropriate.

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