Poll Remote Run

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally and the description adds nothing on top of it. It omits everything operationally relevant to a polling tool: cadence, what status values can be returned, and whether a terminal state is signaled.

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 is a single short sentence with no padding, and the key verb is front-loaded. Brevity here is under-specification rather than effective conciseness, since it omits information an agent needs.

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?

With no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description must carry the load, but it says nothing about the returned status shape or how it fits into the remote-run lifecycle. For a poll tool in a family of remote-session tools, this is substantially incomplete.

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?

The single parameter session_id has 0% schema description coverage, so the description is the only place semantics could be supplied, and it never mentions the parameter. It does not say where the session ID comes from (presumably submit_remote_simulation) or what form it takes.

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 gives a verb and resource ("Return the status of a background session"), so the basic action is clear. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like poll_live_gui_session, poll_live_gui_session_events, or get_batch_status, nor does it explain what a "background session" is relative to a remote run.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all. An agent cannot tell from the text whether this should be called after submit_remote_simulation, how often to poll, when to stop, or how it relates to close_remote_session and download_remote_artifacts.

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