clawswap_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a read operation (checking status) and requires a 'requestId' from 'clawswap_bridge', which adds useful context. However, it doesn't describe behavioral traits like error handling, rate limits, or what the status response might include (e.g., pending, completed, failed).

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key information: the tool's purpose and parameter context. There is no wasted text, and every word earns its place by clarifying usage and dependencies.

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 tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains the purpose and parameter semantics well, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error cases or response format. For a status-checking tool, this leaves some uncertainty for the agent.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that 'requestId' comes from 'clawswap_bridge', providing semantic context beyond the schema's technical description. This helps the agent understand the parameter's origin and purpose, elevating the score.

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 tool's purpose: 'Check the status of a previously initiated bridge' with the specific resource being 'a previously initiated bridge' and the verb 'Check the status'. It distinguishes from its sibling 'clawswap_bridge' by specifying it's for checking status rather than initiating. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'clawswap_quote', which might be for getting quotes rather than checking status.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: after initiating a bridge with 'clawswap_bridge' and needing to check its status using the 'requestId'. It implies an alternative by referencing 'clawswap_bridge' for initiation, but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or compare with 'clawswap_quote'.

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