edgegate_check_llm_compile_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the statuses returned, when composite_artifact_id is present, when error_detail is present, and the progress fields. The verb 'Poll' conveys a read-only, repeatable operation. However, it does not mention side effects (likely none), rate limits, or behavior for invalid job IDs.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and efficiently lists the return values. The use of slashes for statuses is concise but does not compromise clarity. It is appropriately sized with no 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 polling tool with two obvious parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential return values and statuses. It lacks an explicit example or guidance on polling interval, but the information is sufficient for basic invocation and interpretation of results.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides no meaning for workspace_id or compile_job_id beyond the tool name. The description references 'an LLM compile job' but does not indicate which parameter identifies the job or the role of workspace_id, leaving the agent to infer from parameter names alone.

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 the specific verb 'Poll' and identifies the resource as 'an LLM compile job', clearly distinguishing it from the sibling 'edgegate_check_genie_compile_status' which polled Genie compile jobs. The statuses and returned fields are enumerated, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 usage for polling an LLM compile job after it has been started, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling check_genie_compile_status or other alternative tools. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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