mc_goto_status

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden. It does well by enumerating the result states (running|arrived|failed:<reason>|stopped) and the reported fields, but it omits behavior when no walk exists, whether it is purely read-only, and whether polling is rate-limited or cheap.

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?

A single dense sentence that is front-loaded with the subject and then enumerates the fields and states. Every clause contributes information, with no filler.

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 zero-parameter status tool with no output schema, the description covers the important return values and state machine. The remaining gap is the no-active-walk case and any safety or auth notes, which a careful agent would want before polling.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly spends no words on inputs and instead describes outputs.

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 names a specific resource, the status of the current mc_goto walk, and lists exactly what it reports (active state, remaining nodes, position, result). This clearly separates it from the general mc_status sibling, though the phrasing is noun-first rather than a verb+resource statement.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is for polling an in-progress mc_goto. There is no explicit guidance on when to call it versus mc_status, mc_goto, or mc_goto_stop, and no note on what it returns when no walk is active.

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