Run status (for the pane)

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavioral traits: the invocation cadence (every few seconds) and the intended consumer (a UI pane, not the agent). It stops short of describing the return payload or whether polling is cheap/idempotent, but the caller constraint is the behavior that matters most here.

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, and the audience constraint is front-loaded immediately after the mechanism. Nothing is padded or buried.

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?

For a zero-parameter, output-schema-less UI polling endpoint, the description supplies the one thing an agent needs: do not call this, call scout_status. Return-shape details are absent but legitimately irrelevant to the agent audience the description has already excluded.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema already fully covers its surface and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline for a parameterless tool.

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 names the specific caller (the scout_status pane) and the specific action (refreshing run status), so the resource and operation are identifiable. It is also clearly distinguishable from the sibling scout_status, though it never spells out what payload the poll actually returns.

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?

It gives an explicit negative use case ('Not for the agent') plus a named alternative ('call scout_status instead'). An agent has everything it needs to route away from this tool with no inference required.

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