render_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the read-only nature implicitly plus the returned content (whether rendering, per-job status, percent, errors) and the empty-job_id queue-wide behavior. It doesn't discuss permissions or whether the call blocks/is cheap, but for a status query that's minor.

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 tight sentences: purpose and returned fields first, then the usage rule. No repetition and nothing wasted.

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 re-explained, and the only parameter is covered. For a simple read-only status tool the definition is 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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the single parameter is fully explained in prose: its provenance (job_id from render_current_timeline) and the meaning of the empty default (every job in the queue). This fully compensates for the undocumented 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Report render progress') and enumerates the returned fields (status, percent, errors), which lets an agent distinguish it from resolve_status. It stops short of explicitly naming resolve_status as the alternative for non-render queries.

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 explicitly tells the agent how to use the default: pass the job_id from render_current_timeline, or leave it empty to list every job in the queue. That is clear conditional guidance, though it doesn't state when to prefer this over sibling status tools like resolve_status.

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