workload_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context by disclosing the specific metrics returned and the 'live while it runs' behavior. However, it doesn't explain whether results are final after completion or how the per-second timeline behaves, so it adds moderate rather than rich context.

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?

It's a single dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Progress and results of a run') and then lists the metrics. No wasted words, though the metric enumeration is packed tightly.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and readOnlyHint covers safety. The main gap is the near-total lack of parameter documentation (0% schema coverage), with only 'since' partially explained. Adequate but with a clear gap for a required run_id.

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%, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully clarifies the 'since' parameter ('a per-second timeline from second since'), adding real semantic value. However, it says nothing about 'run_id' beyond implying the tool operates on a run, leaving that required parameter undocumented.

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 what the tool delivers: progress and results of a run, enumerated with specific metrics (per-statement count, throughput, latency percentiles, errors, queue wait, timeline). It reads as a clear verb+resource concept ('status of a run'), though it does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate from workload_run or workload_list.

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 parenthetical '(live while it runs)' hints at timing but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance. It never states how this differs from workload_run, workload_list, or other run-related siblings, so the agent must infer the appropriate context.

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