get_breaking_point_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the lack of push notifications, explains the precision limitation of breakingPoint (reading breakingPointRange for exactness), and mentions where data is persisted on disk. It does not explicitly state the operation is read-only, but 'Check' implies it, and the detailed result semantics add value.

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 long but information-dense, front-loading the core purpose and then detailing nuances. Each sentence adds value—progress details, precision caveat, polling behavior, and disk locations. It is structured logically and not overly verbose for the tool's complexity.

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 there is no output schema, the description thoroughly covers what the tool returns: status, progress, rounds with metrics, breaking point, conclusion, and breakingPointRange. It also explains the precision caveat and where raw data lives. Missing edge cases (e.g., invalid searchId) are minor and do not detract from overall completeness.

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 the description must compensate. It implies that searchId is the identifier returned by find_breaking_point by referencing that tool, which gives context. However, it does not explicitly state the origin or format of searchId, leaving room for slight ambiguity. For a single string parameter, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 verb 'Check' and the resource 'capacity search started with find_breaking_point', and enumerates exactly what is returned (status, progress, rounds, breaking point, conclusion). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_execution_status by specifying the breaking-point search context.

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 clearly indicates this tool is for checking a search started with find_breaking_point and explicitly notes 'There is no completion push - poll this tool', which guides usage for polling. However, it does not name alternative tools for other execution status checks or explicitly state when not to use it, leaving that to inference from siblings.

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