vibemk_get_bulk_discovery_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'shows progress', implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm it is non-destructive or describe the nature of the returned data (e.g., fields like status, progress percentage). It also doesn't mention polling behavior or potential delays. The description is not contradictory but lacks depth.

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 short and front-loaded with the action. The emoji adds visual emphasis without harming clarity. However, the two parts ('Get bulk discovery status' and 'Show progress of a bulk discovery job') are nearly redundant, with the second only slightly refining the first. It's efficient but slightly repetitive, so not a perfect 5.

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 tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations). The description gives enough to know its basic purpose but leaves out what the response structure looks like and any confirmation that it is read-only. For a status-check tool, this is adequate but not fully complete—an agent might need to know if it returns a single progress value or a more detailed job object.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'job_id' with description 'Bulk discovery job ID'. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema already gives, such as how to obtain the job_id or its expected format. Since schema coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('bulk discovery status'), and adds 'Show progress of a bulk discovery job' which specifies what the status represents. It distinguishes from sibling tools like vibemk_get_discovery_status (likely for single discovery) and vibemk_get_discovery_background_job by the explicit 'bulk' qualifier. The purpose is 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 implies it is for bulk discovery jobs, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like vibemk_get_discovery_status or vibemk_wait_for_discovery. There is no direct comparison or exclusion, leaving the agent to infer from naming conventions. It provides no guidance on prerequisites (e.g., obtaining a job_id from vibemk_start_bulk_discovery).

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