get_batch_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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a dictionary with status, counts, and errors, which is helpful. However, it lacks details on potential side effects (e.g., if it's read-only, which is implied but not stated), error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient to fully inform an agent.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clear sections for arguments and returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent. No unnecessary details are included.

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 moderate complexity (single parameter, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is mostly complete. It explains the purpose, parameter semantics, and return structure. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., read-only nature, error cases), which is a minor gap. The output schema likely covers return values, so the description doesn't need to detail them extensively.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that 'session_id' is a 'Session ID from start_image_batch,' clarifying its origin and purpose beyond the schema's basic string type. Since there's only one parameter, this is adequate to cover semantics, though it doesn't detail format or constraints, keeping it from a perfect 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: 'Get the current status of a batch generation session.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('status of a batch generation session'), which distinguishes it from siblings like 'generate_image' or 'start_image_batch'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other status-related tools (none are listed), so it's not a perfect 5.

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 by referencing 'session_id: Session ID from start_image_batch,' suggesting it should be used after initiating a batch. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., monitoring progress vs. fetching results), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. This is adequate but leaves gaps in contextual guidance.

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