synthesis_status_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, how it handles incomplete or nonexistent runs, or any potential errors. The tool returns status data, but the lack of side-effect or error behavior disclosure is a notable gap.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and immediately lists the key return values. Every word contributes essential information without redundant filler.

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 single-parameter status tool, the description covers the core purpose and return contents. However, it omits edge-case behavior (e.g., what if the run is not completed or the ID is invalid) and does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation, leaving some gaps in contextual completeness.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not elaborate on the 'synthesisId' parameter. While the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description adds no extra meaning, such as where to obtain the ID (e.g., from list_synthesis_runs) or any format requirements.

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 ('synthesis run'), and enumerates the returned data (iteration count, fitness history, counterexamples, outcome). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_synthesis_runs (which lists runs) and cancel_synthesis (which cancels a run).

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 phrase 'completed synthesis run' provides clear context for when to use this tool—after a run has finished. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficiently clear given the sibling tool names.

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