edgegate_check_genie_compile_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the admin access requirement and the successful output, but does not describe behavior when the job is not done, error handling, or potential side effects. The 'poll' wording implies read-only, but the actual behavior is not fully detailed.

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 long, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every sentence adds value: what it does, what it returns, and a prerequisite. No fluff or repetition.

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 2-parameter poll tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains the purpose, the output (bundle_artifact_id), the downstream usage, and the required permission. It could mention non-done status behavior, but overall it gives enough context for correct invocation.

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 50%, with only job_id described in the schema. The description does not add further meaning to either parameter, such as what workspace_id refers to or how job_id is obtained. It mentions 'genie-compile job' but doesn't connect parameters to the polling action. The description provides minimal added value 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 states the tool polls a genie-compile job and returns a bundle_artifact_id upon completion. It uses specific verb+resource ('Poll a genie-compile job') and differentiates from sibling status tools by naming the job type and output. This is a precise, unambiguous purpose.

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 clear context: poll a genie-compile job, and when done, use the result to feed into edgegate_create_bg_run. It also mentions a prerequisite (workspace admin access). It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like edgegate_check_status, but the specificity makes the appropriate use case clear.

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