securitypass_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 partially delivers by disclosing the return contents and implying a read-only polling operation with a 'safe' proof envelope, but it says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, idempotency, or polling cadence.

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?

Two dense sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence usefully enumerates return fields, though the term 'securitypass_receipt_v1 proof envelope' is unexplained jargon.

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?

For a single-parameter polling tool with no output schema, the description usefully covers what comes back (status, verdict summary, counts, proof envelope). The opaque 'proof envelope' terminology and absence of any lifecycle/polling guidance are the only gaps.

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%; the schema already documents run_id as 'The run id returned by securitypass_run.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics, 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 and resource: 'Poll the state of a SecurityPass run,' and enumerates what the response contains. It is clear on its own, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the securitypass_run/securitypass_report/securitypass_finding_detail siblings in the same namespace.

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 verb 'poll' implies this is used to check an in-progress or completed run, which is meaningful implied guidance for an agent. However there is no explicit statement of when to use it versus securitypass_run, what the terminal states are, or when to stop polling.

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