get_solve_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and usefully discloses that the tool avoids touching Mechanical while it is busy and returns the solve result only once. It still leaves out error behavior and whether the operation is strictly read-only, but it adds meaningful non-schema behavior.

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-loads the returned information before the behavioral caveat. The single 'Args:' line is terse but does not clutter the definition.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the key busy-Mechanical behavior. However, for a one-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the unexplained analysis_index leaves a meaningful 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 only parameter, analysis_index, has 0% schema description coverage and is mentioned only as 'Args: analysis_index'. The description does not explain what the index refers to, how it should be chosen, or what the default 0 means.

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 the tool returns solution status, Mechanical messages, and the solver working directory. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as get_solution_information or get_run_progress, so it misses the top score.

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 usage context: while a solve started by solve_analysis is running, the tool answers 'Solving' without touching busy Mechanical, then returns that solve's result once. It does not name when to use alternatives or explicitly say when not to use this tool.

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