copypass_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 discloses return contents and a session-scoping constraint, but does not explicitly state that it is read-only, how repeated calls behave, what errors occur for unknown or expired run IDs, or whether any access constraints apply.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and result scope. The dense enumeration of returned artifacts is useful, though it makes the sentence long without being wasteful.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description usefully enumerates the returned components: status, notes, findings, disclaimer, proof envelope, and receipt. It omits status values or error behavior, but is otherwise reasonably complete for a read-only session-bound status 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?

There is one required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents run_id as returned by copypass_run. The description reinforces that the parameter identifies a CopyPass run, but adds no format or lookup semantics beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly states a specific fetch action and a rich resource: current status, notes, findings, disclaimer, proof envelope, and receipts for a CopyPass run. It implies the distinction from copypass_run by referring to a run started in-session, but does not explicitly name or compare against sibling tools.

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 phrase 'for a CopyPass run started in this MCP session' implies use after copypass_run and within the same session, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternatives.

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