daz_get_request_status

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

Without annotations, the description fully covers behavioral traits: it is non-blocking, fast, reads from in-memory map without executing DazScript, and is safe to call frequently. It also explains the return format and value ranges (e.g., progress 0.0 while running, 1.0 when complete). No contradictions.

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 concise with a clear title line, then body, and structured Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds unique value: purpose, safety, implementation detail, and full return documentation. No redundancy or fluff.

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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema described in the description, the coverage is complete. It explains all possible statuses, progress behavior, and conditional fields. The context signals show 0% schema description coverage, but the description compensates fully.

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 only defines request_id as required string with 0% description coverage. The description adds context: 'request_id: Request ID returned by an async submission tool.' This source guidance provides meaning beyond the schema, though it does not specify format constraints.

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 'Get the current status of an async request' and emphasizes it is 'non-blocking, always fast'. This distinguishes it from siblings like daz_get_request_result (which retrieves final results) and daz_cancel_request (which modifies state). The verb+resource is specific and unambiguous.

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 says 'Safe to call frequently' and implies use for polling status. It does not explicitly exclude use after completion or compare to alternatives, but the purpose and return structure (including progress, queue_position, elapsed_ms) clearly indicate it is for monitoring ongoing requests.

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