check_mission_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the lifecycle states and that it returns full details. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or mention any side effects. The behavioral context is mostly covered.

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?

Well-structured with sections for purpose, usage, lifecycle, parameter, and returns. Every sentence adds value, though the motivational note about workers waiting on payment is slightly extraneous. Still very good.

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 simplicity (1 param, output schema exists), the description covers all needed aspects: purpose, usage, lifecycle, parameter explanation, and return format. It also provides guidance on subsequent actions.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must explain the parameter. It does so clearly: 'mission_uuid: The UUID returned when you created the mission', adding where the value comes from and its uniqueness.

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 verb 'Check', the resource 'mission', and the scope 'you created'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like approve_mission or cancel_mission by focusing on status monitoring.

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?

Explicitly lists when to use: monitor progress, check claim, check proof submission. Also advises on follow-up actions for PROOF_SUBMITTED status, directing to approve_mission or reject_mission. This differentiates it from other tools.

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