cura_project_save_status

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

Annotations already declare a safe read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds real behavioral content beyond them: it enumerates the possible outcomes (completion, validated archive size/hash, or failure) and warns that a 'running' result does not mean the save finished, which is meaningful state semantics for a poller.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the outcome summary leads and the state-semantics caveat follows. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately enumerates the return states rather than leaving the agent guessing. The main gap is the undocumented operation_id and any retry/polling cadence, but for a single-read status tool it is nearly complete.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden for the single operation_id parameter, yet it never mentions operation_id, its origin, or format. The only parameter is left entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 ('Read') and resource ('completion, validated archive size/hash or failure for a project save'), so the agent knows this is a save-status poll rather than a generic status call. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like cura_status or cura_operation, leaving some ambiguity about which status tool applies.

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 sentence 'A running response is not a completed save' implies the tool is meant for polling an in-progress save, giving some contextual usage guidance. However, it never states when to call it versus cura_status or cura_operation, nor prerequisites such as needing an operation_id from a prior save call.

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