gpt56_pro_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It signals this is a read operation (non-mutating, safe to call). However, terms like 'authoritative daemon state' and 'cooperative control-file report' are unexplained jargon that obscure the actual behavior and return semantics. The description gives hints (read-only, latest/validated data) but doesn't disclose what an agent will actually receive or whether repeated calls are safe.

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 sentence with no filler words, front-loading the key verb 'Read' and specifying the resource. The structure is efficient — a busy agent can extract the action quickly. Points are deducted only because the dense, jargony phrasing ('authoritative daemon state', 'validated cooperative control-file report') achieves brevity at the expense of immediate clarity.

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 status-checking tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description carries significant responsibility, and it's mostly adequate: it conveys read-only semantics and a job-scoped scope. However, it doesn't clarify what an agent will do with the output (e.g., does it return a job state like pending/running/completed?) or how 'daemon state' differs from the 'control-file report.' The existence of siblings suggests a workflow (start → status → followup), but the description doesn't articulate where the boundaries lie.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3 with no additional parameter info needed. The description's phrase 'for a job in this MCP workspace' loosely references the job context, but the schema already documents that jobId comes from gpt56_pro_start or gpt56_pro_followup. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given full coverage.

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 ('Read') and identifies a concrete resource ('authoritative daemon state and the latest validated cooperative control-file report') scoped to a job in the MCP workspace. It clearly distinguishes from siblings: start and followup are different operations, so an agent would not confuse this with them. The phrase 'in this MCP workspace' adds a scoping qualifier that reduces over-flagging as a general system status tool.

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: check status of a job in the MCP workspace, presumably after gpt56_pro_start or gpt56_pro_followup. However, there's no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings, when polling is appropriate, or what conditions would call for gpt56_pro_followup instead. The context is implied by the workflow rather than stated.

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