keyso_get_clustering_state_uid

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly indicates a GET request (read-only) and shows an example URL, but does not describe the response format (e.g., status codes, fields like 'processing', 'completed', 'error'), whether it requires authentication beyond the token parameter, or any polling semantics. The method and path are disclosed, but critical behavior such as expected response structure is missing.

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 very short and front-loads the purpose ('Статус обработки отчета'), followed by method, path, and an example. It avoids unnecessary words and is efficiently structured, though it could add a sentence on usage without becoming verbose.

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 status-checking tool, the description is incomplete. It lacks information about what the response contains (no output schema), how the UID is obtained (e.g., from a prior clustering creation), and when to use it relative to other clustering operations. The agent may not know if the response is a JSON object with status fields or how to interpret it. More context is needed for reliable invocation.

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%, so all parameters (uid, token, base_url) are documented in the schema. The description adds an example URL that illustrates the UID format (hex string), which is mildly helpful, but does not enrich the parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 as 'report processing status' and provides the HTTP method and path. The name and context make it distinct from sibling clustering tools (e.g., post_clustering, delete_clustering_uid, get_clustering_list), and it correctly identifies the resource (clustering state) and the required UID parameter.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus other clustering endpoints. It does not mention that it should be used after submitting a clustering job, nor does it reference any alternatives like keyso_post_clustering or keyso_get_clustering_list. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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