port_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does establish read-only semantics ('Read') and discloses what the result contains, which is meaningful beyond structured fields. It says nothing about failure behavior when no job exists, where the persisted state lives, or whether the read has side effects such as refreshing state.

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 with no filler, leading with the verb and resource before listing the payload contents. Front-loaded and efficient, though the trailing list is dense enough that some readers may skim it.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does partially compensate by naming the returned categories. It remains incomplete for a persistence-backed read: empty-state behavior, staleness guarantees (how 'last' is determined), and the sole parameter are all unaddressed.

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 0% and the single parameter projectRoot is undocumented. The description never mentions projectRoot, so it does not explain that the job is located by project root, nor whether paths are absolute or relative — the agent gets no help beyond the bare schema key.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Read the last persisted port job', and enumerates the payload (blocked stages, tool versions, artifacts, source provenance). This separates it from the mutating port_start/port_apply siblings, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 last persisted port job' implies this is a post-run inspection tool, so usage is inferable. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of what to do if no job has been persisted yet, and no routing to overlapping siblings such as project_state or port_project_plan.

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