study_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Return' implies a read-only query, and the list of returned categories adds useful context. However, it does not disclose whether any call has side effects, requires special permissions, or how 'durable' progress differs from transient job progress.

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 11-word sentence with no filler. The main action and output categories are front-loaded, making the core purpose immediately visible.

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?

Although an output schema exists so return values need not be fully described, the description still lacks essential selection context for an enormous sibling list. It never clarifies when to prefer study_status over job_status or study_results, and it leaves the meaning of 'durable' unexplained.

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 study_id has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It never explains what study_id refers to, its expected format, or how the caller should obtain a valid value. The term 'study' in the tool name provides only minimal implicit context.

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 uses a clear verb ('Return') and specific output categories: durable study progress, child jobs, provenance, and response errors. This distinguishes it from generic status tools, though it does not explicitly contrast it with closely related siblings like job_status or study_results.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as job_status, study_list, or study_results. The description only lists return contents and never states when this status endpoint is the right choice or when it is not.

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