edgegate_check_status

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses that the response includes per-device metrics and gate results, but it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, or mention any side effects, rate limits, or error behavior.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and key response details. Every word contributes value and there is no redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context. It mentions per-device metrics and gate results but does not explain the run status format, how to interpret failures, or any prerequisites. It is adequate but not fully 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain the parameters beyond the schema's UUID format, nor does it clarify the relationship between workspace_id and run_id. The parameter names are fairly self-explanatory but the description adds no extra meaning.

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 gets the current status of an EdgeGate run, with specific details about per-device metrics and gate pass/fail outcomes. This distinguishes it from siblings like edgegate_get_report (which likely retrieves a full report) and status checks for other resources (e.g., edgegate_check_genie_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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies it is for checking a run's status, but does not mention prerequisites, timing, or when to prefer other tools like edgegate_get_report or edgegate_compare_runs.

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