get_model_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond a generic status check by enumerating exact statuses (pending/under way/complete/failed) and specifying returned data: progress percentage, estimated time remaining, and timestamps. It does not discuss side effects or polling semantics, but 'check' and 'progress' make the non-mutating behavior reasonably clear.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a clear listing of return contents, and an Args block with the necessary parameter guidance. Every sentence adds actionable information and there is 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 low-complexity tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return values, and parameter provenance sufficiently for correct invocation. It could be improved by explicitly contrasting with get_model_results, but nothing essential for calling the tool is missing.

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 provides only a bare type and title for model_hash, with 0% schema description coverage. The description compensates fully by explaining that model_hash is 'returned by create_model or list_models', giving the agent a precise way to obtain the required value.

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 ('Check') and a specific resource ('model') with a clear scope ('fitting progress'). It distinguishes itself naturally from siblings like get_model_results and list_models by focusing on progress rather than final outputs or metadata.

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 context by noting that model_hash comes from create_model or list_models, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_model_results. There is no exclusionary guidance or conditional routing, so the usage is implied rather than explicit.

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