td_timeline_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that finished or unfinished jobs are reported, that a stalled walk is detected after several seconds without a step, and that actionable advice is included. This is strong for a status tool, though it does not mention auth or error 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 tight and front-loaded, with the core output dimensions in the first sentence. The two additional short sentences add distinct modes and stalled behavior without repetition or 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 single-optional-parameter status tool with an output schema present, the description is complete: it covers all invocation modes and key behaviors. The output schema handles return-value detail, so nothing essential 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 no description for the job parameter, so the description must compensate. It does explain the meaning of providing a job, omitting it to get the latest one, and that it can refer to either a timeline_run or timeline_profile job. It stops short of specifying the expected string format, but the semantics are clear.

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 immediately states it reports progress of a td_timeline_run job and names the returned aspects: frame, pass, files saved, errors. It also clarifies the profile-job variant, making the tool's resource and behavior unambiguous and distinguishable from generic status siblings like td_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?

It gives clear invocation context: use for td_timeline_run jobs, td_timeline_profile jobs, or with no job to fetch the latest one. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the usage boundaries are clear enough for an agent to choose this tool appropriately.

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