Get BAS assessment status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, establishing a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds context about the kind of information returned (running/idle/last-run info), which goes beyond the annotations and gives the agent an idea of what to expect.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action ('Get current status') and includes parenthetical detail on the content. No unnecessary words or redundant information.

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 tool's simplicity (single param, no output schema), the description provides a basic idea of the return value ('running/idle/last-run info') but lacks any explanation of the required 'module' parameter or response structure. It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps for a complete understanding.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the required 'module' parameter, and the description does not elaborate on it. While the enum values are listed, the description fails to explain what 'module' means or how it affects the result, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name and enum names alone.

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 specific verb ('Get') and resource ('BAS module status'), and specifies the type of status ('running/idle/last-run info'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like cymulate_bas_get_latest_results, which retrieves results rather than 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 implies usage: if you need the current status of the BAS module, you call this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, such as distinguishing from launching or stopping an assessment or retrieving results.

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