render_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only states it reports progress, but does not mention idempotency, authentication requirements, or whether it is a read-only operation. A 2 is appropriate for minimal disclosure.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and efficiently covers both modes without any extraneous words.

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?

The description covers the tool's functionality well for a simple input schema with one parameter. However, it lacks details about the output format (e.g., what 'status' includes such as progress percentage or state). Slightly incomplete without an output schema.

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%, and the description adds essential meaning: job_id specifies a particular job (if provided), or omitting it reports if any render is running. This fully explains the parameter's dual role.

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 clearly states the tool reports render progress, with two distinct modes: status of a specific job or whether any render is running. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like render_start, render_stop, and render_formats.

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 for checking render progress, either for a specific job (with job_id) or overall (without). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is sufficiently clear among siblings.

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