call_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description does useful work by saying the tool is safe to call at any time and by describing what it observes. It also discloses the 45-second wait cap, which is important behavioral context. It does not, however, fully clarify side effects or blocking semantics for every wait scenario.

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 front-loaded and reasonably efficient: it first explains what the tool reports, then documents the key wait parameter. The `Args` section is useful, but the self-referential 'calling call_status again and again' phrasing and the nonexistent `name` reference add avoidable ambiguity.

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?

The description covers the core monitoring behavior, safety, wait limit, and progress/result reporting, which is enough for an agent to use the tool. Because an output schema exists, it need not describe return values in detail, but the missing targeting semantics for a specific call and the `name` inconsistency leave a notable gap.

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 schema documents `instance`, and the description adds detailed meaning for `wait_seconds`, including the 45-second maximum and its polling-replacement behavior. However, the description refers to waiting without a `name`, but the schema has no `name` parameter, which creates confusion about how to target a specific call.

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 that this tool follows an already-running call and reports elapsed time, dialog text, progress/output, and final result. It is specific about the resource and the observable outputs, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling `status` tool or other call-related tools.

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 a clear use case: a call that outlived the wait, such as a long job or one blocked behind an Inventor dialog. It also explains that `wait_seconds` can be used instead of polling repeatedly, though it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name an alternative sibling tool.

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