jiji_action_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the 'does not approve or execute' sentence largely restates what structured fields provide. It adds a little value by framing the call as an outcome check on a separately prepared action, but says nothing about how long results take to appear, whether the call blocks, or what states can be returned.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the key exclusion immediately following. Nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, a status-check tool in an approve/execute workflow needs to say where the id originates and roughly what outcome states mean (pending vs approved vs executed) — neither is covered, leaving the agent to infer the whole workflow handoff.

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% — the lone 'id' parameter is a bare UUID with no description. The description says 'a prepared action's ... result' which only weakly implies the id is an action identifier, and never states that it comes from jiji_prepare_action. For a 1-parameter tool with zero schema documentation, the description should have explicitly identified the id.

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 ('Check') and a specific resource ('a prepared action's approval/execution result'), which is far more precise than the bare name. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the mutating siblings, though it never names jiji_prepare_action directly.

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 negative clause 'Does not approve or execute it' usefully steers the agent away from treating this as a mutation, implying it is a follow-up poll after preparation. But it never explicitly says 'use this after jiji_prepare_action to poll for the outcome', nor does it state when to stop polling or what alternatives exist (e.g. jiji_message_status for the messaging path).

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