flowpass_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it enumerates what is returned (status, score, summary, open disagreement entries) and constrains scope to runs started in the current MCP session, which affects whether a stored run is retrievable.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the return fields and the session-scoping constraint are packed in without redundancy.

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, the description usefully enumerates the returned content and notes the session constraint, which is important for a status-lookup tool. It is largely complete, though it could note behavior when the run_id is not found or from another session.

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?

Only one parameter, run_id, and the schema fully documents it at 100% coverage ('The FlowPass run id returned by flowpass_run'). The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond that, so the schema carries the load and the baseline of 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 the exact resources returned (run status, score, summary, open disagreement queue entries) for the FlowPass domain. The phrase 'for a run started in this MCP session' also distinguishes it from the sibling flowpass_run, which starts runs.

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 clause 'for a run started in this MCP session' tells the agent the prerequisite context in which this tool applies, implying it is used after flowpass_run. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g. flowpass_disagreement_queue, flowpass_report) or state when not to use it.

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