compliancepass_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the result is live or a snapshot, what the status values can be, whether it errors for an unknown/expired run_id, or any auth/session requirements — leaving the behavioral envelope largely unstated for a no-annotation 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?

A single tight sentence with no filler and the resource front-loaded after the verb. There is no structural flourish, but none is needed for a one-parameter tool.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only source of behavioral context, and it says only that status and a summary are returned. It is adequate for invocation but silent on failure modes, status enumerations, and how it relates to the run/report siblings.

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% and the single run_id parameter is already documented as coming from compliancepass_run. The description only restates that the run is the target, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('stored in-session status and summary for a CompliancePass run'). It distinguishes itself from the report siblings by emphasizing in-session status, though it never names compliancepass_run or the report tools explicitly.

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?

'In-session' and 'stored' imply this is the polling/inspection tool for a run already started via compliancepass_run, which is a usable hint. But there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention that the run_id comes from compliancepass_run, and no contrast with compliancepass_report_json/md.

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