research_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, but the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: the journal write cadence (at start, after each turn, at the end), the meaning of `running`, and the `present: false` return when no session exists. It also discloses the environment prerequisite (app not installed on this machine) that annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded with the blocking prerequisite, then the purpose, then the lifecycle routing — a sensible order with no filler. It is somewhat long and the parenthetical about `age_s` leans toward describing output that a return-value reader would infer, but every sentence carries actionable information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe the return surface — and it does (status, turns, ideas, evidence, token count, errors, age_s, and the `present: false` case). Combined with the prerequisite and lifecycle guidance, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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% and the `session_id` parameter is already documented in the schema (journal id format, omit for most recent). The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Read the saved journal of an in-app Research session', and enumerates exactly what the journal contains (status, turns, ideas, evidence, token count, errors, age_s). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like backtest_status, live_state, and v9_get_run, which cover different subsystems.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: start a session with pilot_app(prompt="/research ...") and stop it with pilot_app(prompt="/stop"), and states the hard prerequisite (Stochastly installed, open, with an Atelier or Portfolio licence). It also warns that a `running` status is only a checkpoint, not proof of liveness, which is precisely the kind of caveat that changes how an agent interprets a result.

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