wbpp_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds useful behavioral detail by enumerating the returned status states and including log tail and master light paths. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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, dense sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and the output specifics in a parenthetical. Every word earns its place with 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 simple one-parameter status tool with safety annotations and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what result the agent can expect. It lacks explicit guidance on invalid IDs or polling behavior, but these are minor for this tool's complexity.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the burden for explaining wbpp_id. The phrase 'Status of a wbpp_run' implies wbpp_id identifies the run, and the schema marks it required string, but the description does not explicitly say it is the ID returned from wbpp_run. Partial compensation, not full.

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 states a specific resource ('a wbpp_run') and the operation (status), with concrete output components: running/ok/error, log tail, and master light paths. This clearly distinguishes wbpp_status from sibling status tools such as job_status and pi_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?

The intended context is clear: this is the tool for checking the status of a wbpp_run, which pairs naturally with the sibling wbpp_run tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the resource-specific wording makes when to use it unambiguous.

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