Check a sci-bot question ticket

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

With no annotations provided, the description clearly discloses that the tool reads process state only and never contacts the service, which is valuable safety-relevant behavior. It does not detail edge cases like missing tickets or partially complete processes, but the core non-mutating behavior is transparent.

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 compact sentences that front-load the tool's purpose and then add a key safety qualifier. Every clause adds information, and 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?

For a simple one-parameter read-only check tool, the description covers what it returns (state, finished answer, references) and its side-effect profile. Since there is no output schema, a bit more detail about the exact state values or error behavior would be helpful, but the description is still reasonably complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 single parameter ticketId is already fully described in the schema as the id returned by scibot_ask_question. The description repeats that relationship without adding extra format, validation, or usage details, so it adds little beyond the schema.

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 identifies the tool as reporting the current state of a ticket, including the finished answer and references. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like scibot_read_answer or scibot_queue_status, but the verb 'reports' plus the resource 'ticket issued by scibot_ask_question' is specific enough to understand what it does.

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 use for checking ticket progress or retrieving a completed answer without re-triggering work. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over scibot_queue_status or scibot_read_answer, leaving some selection ambiguity among closely related siblings.

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