edgegate_check_reference_capture_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the polling action, the success return value, and the admin access prerequisite. It does not cover error handling or other statuses, but the provided behavioral details are valuable for correct invocation.

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 concise sentences with the key information front-loaded: the main action ('Poll a reference-capture job'), the success outcome, and the downstream integration. No redundant phrasing.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema and annotations, the description explains the workflow, output artifact, downstream use, and required permission, making it sufficiently complete for a simple polling tool. It omits error handling or status details, but these are not critical for basic 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?

The schema documents job_id's origin (returned by edgegate_capture_reference), but workspace_id has no description. The tool description does not add further explanation for workspace_id or parameter usage, leaving the 50% coverage gap only partially compensated.

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 reference-capture job, specifies the successful output (reference_artifact_id) and its downstream use in edgegate_create_bg_run, which distinguishes it from sibling status-check tools like edgegate_check_status or edgegate_check_llm_compile_status.

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 for when to use the tool (polling a reference-capture job) and notes the admin access requirement, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The context is sufficient for an agent to select it over generic status tools.

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