status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Summary' implies a read-only operation, but it never states that explicitly, nor does it mention cost, permissions, or whether it mutates or caches anything.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that lists the returned fields with no filler. It is appropriately sized, though it is concise at the expense of the guidance the tool needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description does useful work by naming the return fields, but it leaves both parameters undocumented and does not distinguish this tool from 'job_status'. For a tool whose name is generic and whose sibling is near-identical, this is incomplete.

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% for both parameters, and the description explains neither. It says nothing about what 'project_dir' expects or how the optional 'project' differs from the required 'project_dir', which is precisely the confusion the description should resolve.

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 names a concrete resource (every talk in the project) and enumerates the content returned: stage, cut counts, expected output length. That is clear enough to distinguish it from most siblings, but it offers no differentiation from the similarly named 'job_status' sibling, which is exactly the ambiguity an agent would need resolved.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no mention of alternatives. With 'job_status' in the sibling list, the agent is left to guess which status tool applies to which situation.

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