uxpass_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 burden. It does not state that the operation is read-only, idempotent, or that it has no side effects. Basic fetch behavior is implied but not explicitly disclosed.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every word is necessary.

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 simple status tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks context on what 'status' or 'summary' entails. It does not explain the format or range of the UX Score.

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 description adds no new information beyond the schema's parameter description. Both say the run_id is returned by uxpass_run, which is sufficient but offers no extra detail.

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 clearly states the tool fetches the status, UX Score, and summary for a UXPass run, specifying the action (Fetch) and the resource (UXPass run). It distinguishes from siblings like uxpass_run (initiates) and uxpass_report_* (generates reports).

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?

Usage is implied as checking the status after running uxpass_run, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. Alternatives like reports are mentioned in sibling list but not compared.

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