research_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation but does not state return format, whether omitting task_id returns all tasks (though the schema suggests this), or any side effects. This is insufficient for an unannotated tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately concise and earns its place by stating the core purpose without waste.

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?

The tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description must explain more. It does not mention return values, behavior when task_id is omitted, or what constitutes 'research tasks.' The schema covers parameters, but the overall description is incomplete for an agent to fully use the tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: both parameters have clear descriptions ('The notebook ID' and 'Specific task ID to check (omit for all)'). The description adds no parameter-level information, but the baseline is 3 for high schema coverage, and no deduction is needed.

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 ('Check') and identifies the resource ('status of research tasks'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like research_start and research_import. However, it doesn't mention the notebook context or that it can check a specific task vs all tasks, leaving some clarity to the schema.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of contrasts with similar status tools like studio_status or notebook_query, nor any when-to-use/when-not-to-use criteria. The only implicit usage is the purpose itself.

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