Strata Vault submission status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by saying the result is 'durable' and listing possible statuses, but it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as missing-ID handling, staleness, or response format.

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?

A single sentence conveys the tool's purpose and expected outcomes with no filler. The colon-delimited status list is compact and front-loaded.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is sufficiently complete: it states the operation is a read, indicates durability, and lists possible outcomes. It could briefly mention the prerequisite preparationId, but that gap is already penalized in parameter semantics.

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 no description for preparationId (0% schema description coverage), and the tool description does not explain that this ID comes from the Vault preparation/submission flow or how to obtain it. The pattern provides format but not semantics, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read'), names the resource ('durable outcome of a submitted Vault transaction'), and enumerates the result states ('submitted, confirmed, or failed'). This clearly distinguishes the status-read tool from sibling 'strata_vault_submit', which is the submission action.

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?

'Read the durable outcome of a submitted Vault transaction' establishes the appropriate context: call this after submission to check persisted status. It does not explicitly name alternatives/exclusions, but the Vault-transaction scope is clear enough for a simple status tool.

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