get_training_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it declares read-only behavior, states that training state is never modified, and reveals a concurrency nuance (possible stale data if a session hasn't flushed). It also enumerates the output categories, giving a clear behavioral picture.

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 two short paragraphs: the first states the purpose in a single sentence, the second adds critical safety and staleness context. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler.

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 output schema is present, the description doesn't need to detail the return format. It adequately covers purpose, safety, concurrency, and output scope for a simple single-parameter read tool. No significant gaps.

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%, and the description does not explicitly map the 'name' parameter to the repertoire name. However, the phrasing 'for a repertoire' strongly implies that the parameter is the repertoire name, adding some meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and identifies the resource ('FSRS training state for a repertoire'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like read_repertoire and list_repertoires. The scope is explicit 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 provides clear context that this is read-only and safe to use while En Croissant runs, with a caveat about unflushed sessions. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'use this instead of read_repertoire', but the unique focus on training state makes the intended usage obvious.

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