chaprola_optimize_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Check status' strongly implies a read-only, non-mutating operation, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose what the response contains, whether it can be called repeatedly for polling, or any rate limits/auth requirements. It is minimal but not misleading.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that states exactly what the tool does. No wasted words or redundant details. It is appropriately concise for a simple status-check tool.

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 low-complexity with full schema coverage, but there is no output schema and no annotations. The description could have explained what the status response looks like or how to interpret it for polling. It is adequate for a basic status check but leaves some uncertainty about return values.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of both parameters (job_id and project) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, and with full schema coverage, the 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 uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('status of an async optimization job'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like chaprola_optimize (which likely creates the job) and other status tools like chaprola_run_status. It is unambiguous and precise.

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 usage after submitting an async optimization job, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The schema hint about job_id from the /optimize response adds context, but the description itself lacks direct usage guidance.

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