uxpass_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does disclose what the call returns (status, UX Score, summary, receipt v1), which is useful given there is no output schema. However, it says nothing about whether the run must be finished, what happens on an unknown run_id, or read-only semantics.

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 with the verb and the returned fields front-loaded, and zero wasted words. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.

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?

The description enumerates the return payload, which matters because there is no output schema, but for a status/polling tool it omits state semantics (pending vs. complete), error behavior, and any relationship to the report siblings. Adequate but with clear 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% and the single run_id parameter is documented as coming from uxpass_run. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies for a one-parameter tool whose schema does the work.

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 a specific resource set (status, UX Score, summary, and uxpass_receipt_v1 for a UXPass run). An agent can distinguish it from uxpass_run or the report siblings, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

There is no stated when-to-use, no prerequisites (e.g., 'call after uxpass_run has completed'), and no routing to sibling tools such as uxpass_report_json for richer output. The only contextual hint, that run_id comes from uxpass_run, lives in the schema rather than the description.

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