solver_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 usefully discloses that this is a GET polling operation, which indicates a read-only style behavior. It does not, however, describe whether the poll blocks, what lifecycle states exist, or what error responses look like.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action, resource, and endpoint with no filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter status-polling tool, the core call semantics are covered. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description omits what the response looks like, what lifecycle values are possible, and how the agent should interpret the result, leaving the tool partially underspecified.

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 description maps the sole execution_id parameter to the {id} path segment in GET /v1/executions/{id}, which adds mild clarity beyond the bare schema. Still, it does not explain the expected format, source, or validation behavior of execution_id, leaving some room for interpretation.

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 ('Poll') and a clear resource ('an execution's lifecycle state'), and it pins the operation to an exact HTTP endpoint. This makes the tool's purpose immediately identifiable and distinct from sibling tools like solver_result or solver_submit.

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 phrasing implies this tool is for checking an execution's lifecycle state after submission. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over similar siblings such as solver_result or solver_poll_source_handoff, nor does it mention any exclusions or polling frequency.

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