legalpass_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool returns a stored run result and audit log, and that the run must have been started through legalpass_run, but it does not describe permissions, error behavior, or whether the run must be complete.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every clause contributes: what is fetched, what is returned, and the required run provenance.

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 helpfully states that both a run result and an audit log are returned, which is important return-value context. It remains slightly incomplete because it does not clarify behavior when the run is invalid, incomplete, or missing.

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 coverage is 100%, and the single run_id parameter is fully documented in the schema as the id returned by legalpass_run. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond that baseline, so a 3 is appropriate.

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, 'Fetch', names the resource as the stored LegalPass run result and audit log, and ties it to a run started via legalpass_run. This clearly separates it from legalpass_run (which starts a run) and from unrelated 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?

It states the context for use: fetching output for a run that was started through legalpass_run. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name an alternative status-retrieval tool, but the dependency on legalpass_run gives clear implied usage guidance.

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