research_status

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses blocking behavior, timeouts, compact truncation, and auto_import action. However, it doesn't explicitly state if the operation is read-only or has side effects.

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?

Structured clearly with 'Args:' but includes non-essential details like contributor credit. Could be slightly trimmed for core usage.

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 7 parameters and complex behavior (blocking, fallback, compact, auto-import), the description covers all essential aspects. Output schema exists for return values, so no need to describe them.

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%, so description must compensate. It explains each of the 7 parameters in detail, including defaults, behavior, and even a contributor acknowledgement, far exceeding schema.

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 starts with a clear verb-resource 'Poll research progress' and distinguishes itself from siblings like research_start and research_import by focusing on status checking. The name 'research_status' is reinforced.

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 after starting research, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives (e.g., after research_start, before research_import). Sibling context provides some differentiation.

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