chaprola_run_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that full output is returned when done, but does not specify intermediate status behavior, polling semantics, error handling, or whether it is read-only. This is minimal disclosure for a status tool.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded, no redundant information.

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?

Despite simple params, the description lacks details about what the status response looks like before completion, which is essential for an async status tool. No output schema exists, so the description should compensate but does not. Sibling tools and absence of annotations increase the need for more context.

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 100% with both parameters described, so the schema carries the parameter documentation burden. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb 'Check status' and the resource 'async job', and adds the key behavior 'Returns full output when done'. It distinguishes from sibling run tools by focusing on status, but does not explicitly differentiate from other *_status tools like chaprola_optimize_status or chaprola_baa_status.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it follows an async run, but does not mention chaprola_run or state exclusions. Sibling status tools exist, creating potential ambiguity.

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