brigade_status

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does describe the returned content (tasks, phases, log tail, summary path), which is genuinely useful, and 查询 implies read-only. However it never states safety profile, whether it polls/wait, or behavior for a finished/failed run, and there is no output schema to fill that gap.

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 sentences, both front-loaded with the highest-value information (what status reports, then how to supply the run id). The parenthetical phase list is compact and earns its space; no filler.

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 single-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return contents, and argument provenance well. Remaining gaps are minor: no statement of read-only semantics or behavior when the run has already terminated.

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 schema already says 'mcpId 或原生 runId（必填）'. The description repeats the same accepted-value information for `run` almost verbatim, adding only the provenance hint that mcpId comes from brigade_run. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the documenting.

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?

Names a specific verb (查询) and resource (军团运行状态) and enumerates exactly what is surfaced: per-task status/duration/attempts, run phase, log tail, summary path. That enumeration clearly separates it from brigade_list (enumerating runs) and brigade_run (starting one), though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 second sentence tells the agent what to pass to `run` (the mcpId returned by brigade_run, or a native runId), which implicitly positions this as the follow-up call after brigade_run. It gives clear context but states no exclusions and does not contrast with brigade_list or brigade_stop.

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