research_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses blocking behavior, polling intervals, timeout, compact mode, and the auto_import side effect. It is transparent about key behavioral traits.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then lists parameters clearly. It is not overly long, though the contributor credit is unnecessary but minor. Well-structured for quick parsing.

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?

Given the complexity (7 params) and no annotations, the description covers all necessary details: blocking, polling, compact, auto_import interaction, and fallback matching. An output schema exists, so return value detail is not required.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description explains all 7 parameters (notebook_id, poll_interval, max_wait, compact, task_id, query, auto_import) with clear meanings and defaults, fully compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Poll research progress. Blocks until complete or timeout.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like research_start, research_import, and notebook_query_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?

While no explicit when-to-use/alternatives are given, the description implies usage for synchronous waiting and provides context for optional parameters like task_id and query, helping the agent understand its role in the research workflow.

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