check_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It states 'check the status' but does not indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what statuses are possible, whether it is asynchronous, or whether there are any side effects. The example only clarifies the parameter format, not the tool's behavior.

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 one sentence plus a focused example. Every word earns its place. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, and the example is directly useful for parameter format.

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?

Despite having only one parameter, the tool likely requires context about what the response will look like. There is no output schema, and the description does not fill that gap by explaining status values or polling implications. The sibling tools suggest an async workflow, but the description does not address this.

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 already provides a clear description for the single parameter 'promptId', and the example adds concrete format context (a UUID-like structure). This goes beyond the schema and helps the agent understand the expected input.

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 function: checking the status of a prompt. It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('status of a prompt'), and the sibling tools (generate_image, copy_image) make the distinction evident. It lacks an explicit contrast with siblings, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that it should be used after submitting a prompt or as a polling mechanism, nor does it explain why it would be preferred over generate_image or copy_image. The usage context is only implied.

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