dfm_check_status

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

No annotations exist, so description carries the burden. It describes the data returned (status, progress, findings, completion date) and implies a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive or mention authentication/rate limits. The behavioral context is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core purpose in the first sentence and adding details in the second. Every word adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Given the simple input schema (one parameter) and presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context by listing the expected return fields (status, progress, findings, completion date). It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's functionality without over-explaining.

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 coverage for the single parameter 'request_id' is 100%, with a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond confirming the purpose of the parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states 'Check the current status of a DFM review request' and lists specific data points (status, progress, findings, completion date), providing a clear verb+resource definition. It distinguishes from sibling tools like check_manufacturing_status by specifying 'DFM review request'.

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 implies usage when you have a DFM review request and need its status, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. No mention of prerequisites or context for use.

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