cuemap_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool reflects background ingestion progress, that it should be polled, and that an idle 0/0 state is not proof of completion. This is meaningful behavioral context, though it doesn't detail potential failure modes or the full status object.

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 sentences and every sentence earns its place. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by a crucial usage caveat. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 tool's low complexity—one optional parameter and no nested objects—the description is largely sufficient. It tells the agent why to call it, when to call it, and what to wait for. The absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by naming verified_complete, though a bit more return-shape context would make it fully complete.

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, project, is fully described in the schema with a 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so it meets the baseline of 3 without adding extra value.

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 tool's specific function: checking CueMap background ingestion progress for a project. It uses a specific verb and resource, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like cuemap_stats, so it doesn't fully earn a 5.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool: after cuemap_init, poll until verified_complete is true. It also warns against misinterpreting an initial idle status. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of 5.

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