blueprint_status

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower, and the description clears it by disclosing a genuine semantic gotcha: 'completed_draft 表示审稿未通过，必须如实说明' tells the agent that a nominally 'completed' status actually means review failure and must be reported truthfully. It does not mention polling cadence, terminal states, or error-shape behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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 compact sentences with no filler; the scope is front-loaded and the important status caveat follows immediately. Every clause carries 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the burden of describing return content (phase, run status, errors, call/token usage) and adds the completed_draft interpretation, which is the highest-value piece of context. Missing only guidance on failure/error states or whether status is terminal.

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?

There is one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema itself documenting the pattern and meaning of job_id, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about the ID beyond what the schema already states.

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?

States a specific verb and resource set ('查看任务阶段、运行状态、错误、调用/token 用量') so an agent immediately knows this is a job-status inspection tool. It is clear on its own, but never names or contrasts with the closely related siblings blueprint_result and blueprint_health, leaving the boundary to inference.

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?

Usage is only implied: the enumeration of status fields suggests 'use this to poll a running job', but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to blueprint_result/blueprint_health. An agent can guess the context but gets no exclusions or alternatives.

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