voltage_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: the specific data included (recent cycles, governor refusals, per-stage timings) and its diagnostic intent. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences with no waste. The action is front-loaded ('Poll a run'), followed by a list of what it returns and the diagnostic purpose. Every phrase earns its place.

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 monitoring tool with an output schema present, the description conveys enough about the returned data to be useful. However, the lack of parameter documentation is a notable gap that makes it slightly incomplete.

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 description does not explain either parameter (run_id, journal_tail) at all. While run_id is somewhat inferable from its name, journal_tail is completely unexplained. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 a specific verb ('Poll') and resource ('a run'), then enumerates the returned data (state, variables, last burst, vision model view, cycles, refusals, timings). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like voltage_capture or voltage_execute_burst, which imply different actions.

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 implies usage during a run to monitor state and diagnose slow loops ('so you can tell whether a slow loop is capture, vision, decision, or execution'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives such as voltage_doctor or voltage_diagnose, leaving some ambiguity.

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