studio_poll

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

Description states it's a read-only check but lacks details on polling behavior (e.g., expected statuses, update frequency, side effects). No annotations provided to fill gaps.

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?

Extremely concise (one short phrase) but under-specified—critical information like parameter details and usage context is missing, so conciseness does not serve completeness.

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?

Despite being a simple tool with one parameter, the description omits return value format, possible statuses, and usage patterns (e.g., polling interval), making it insufficient for autonomous agent use.

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%, and the description does not explain the 'notebook_id' parameter's meaning or format beyond the schema, which only lists it as required string.

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 action ('Check status') and the resource ('studio artifacts') with concrete examples like Audio, Video, Report. This distinguishes it from sibling tools which are creation or management operations.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like research_poll. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions provided.

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