get_analysis_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It says 'check,' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that it does not trigger analysis, whether it is idempotent, or if any side effects exist. It also does not explain what 'progress' means or what the response contains. The description is too thin to provide adequate behavioral transparency.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action. Every word is informative, and there is no redundant or filler content. It effectively captures the tool's purpose in a compact form.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, yet the description does not explain what the response will contain, how 'progress' is reported (e.g., percentage, status string), or how it relates to the analysis lifecycle. Given the existence of trigger_analysis, the description should at least hint at the polling workflow. The included information is adequate for a basic understanding but incomplete for confident invocation and interpretation of results.

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?

The input schema already covers both parameters (source_type and source_id) with clear descriptions (UUID, enum post/reply). The description's mention of 'for a post or reply' merely echoes the schema's enum, adding no new semantic value. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not compensate with any additional parameter-level 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's function: 'Check the V3 argument analysis progress for a post or reply.' It uses a specific verb ('check') and identifies the resource ('argument analysis progress') and scope ('post or reply'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like trigger_analysis (which triggers) and get_argument_graph (which fetches the graph).

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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be called after trigger_analysis or that it is the polling/status-checking counterpart. Sibling tools like trigger_analysis and get_argument_graph exist, but no relationship or exclusion is stated. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and description.

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