devin_get_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does note the tool is 'non-blocking' and 'quick,' which is useful for an agent deciding whether to poll vs. block. However, it doesn't disclose rate-limit implications, whether repeated polling is discouraged, or the exact status_enum values that might be returned — the return is described but not the nuance of status values.

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 front-loaded with the one-line summary. However, the Returns section is somewhat verbose relative to value — it lists six keys that partially mirror what the output schema would already describe. The Args section is near-tautological. Some trimming could improve signal density.

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 simple single-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, non-blocking nature, and return structure. However, it lacks guidance on how status_enum values relate to sibling tools (e.g., when to use devin_await_completion vs repeatedly calling this), and doesn't specify error conditions beyond a generic error field.

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?

Only one parameter (session_id) exists at 0% schema coverage. The description minimally states 'The session ID to check' in the args section, which is a tautology of the parameter name. No additional semantics like format, where to obtain the ID, or validation rules are provided.

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?

Description clearly states it's a 'Quick, non-blocking status check on a Devin session.' The verb 'check' with the resource 'status' is specific and clear. It distinguishes itself from siblings like devin_run_phase (execution) and devin_send_message (messaging), though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 via 'Quick, non-blocking' — suggesting it's for lightweight polling rather than blocking waits. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with devin_await_completion, which would be the natural alternative for waiting on a session to finish. No explicit when/when-not guidance is given.

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