show_modelstatus

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It indicates a read-only operation ('Check'), which is transparent, but fails to disclose any side effects, access requirements, or limitations such as data staleness or performance impact. The description is adequate but not thorough.

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 a single sentence that communicates the core functionality efficiently, with no redundant or irrelevant information. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it quickly understandable.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description provides the key aspects checked (memory usage, export progress) but does not cover potential error scenarios, output format, or limitations. For a moderately complex tool with two required parameters, the description is adequate but leaves some gaps in 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It doesn't elaborate on how workspaceId and modelId relate to the model status query.

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 action 'check' and the resource 'model status', and further specifies the aspects checked: memory usage and export progress. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like show_modeldetails, which likely covers configuration, and show_tasks, which covers task status.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention context, prerequisites, or situations where another sibling tool would be more appropriate. The lack of usage guidance leaves the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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