get_status

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

No annotations provided; description lists output fields (status, step, etc.) but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or whether it is read-only. The term 'snapshot' suggests immutability, but not confirmed.

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?

Single sentence, 25 words, front-loaded with purpose and output list; no wasted 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?

For a simple status tool with one parameter, the description covers what it returns (with fields) and purpose, but lacks detail on return format or possible values (e.g., trend verdicts).

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% and description does not elaborate on the job_id parameter beyond its name. The meaning of job_id is implied but not explained.

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 the tool gets a live snapshot of a job, listing specific fields (status, step, energy, max_force, trend) which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_results or get_trajectory.

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?

Implies usage for decision-making ('decide whether to intervene'), but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use.

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