crawl_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses state-dependent behavior: while running it shows elapsed time and runner lines; once finished it shows headline counts. This goes beyond the schema and helps set expectations, though it doesn't cover error or authorization scenarios.

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 compact, scannable, and front-loaded with the core purpose before detailing the two output states. Every sentence earns its place, and the follow-up instruction is clearly separated.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns in both relevant states and directs the agent to the appropriate next tool. This is sufficient for correct selection and invocation.

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 only provides the job_id property with a default of '', so the description's statement 'Omit job_id for the most recent' adds meaningful semantics. It clarifies that the parameter is optional and controls which crawl is inspected, compensating for the lack of schema description coverage.

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 identifies a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('a crawl started by start_crawl'), and distinguishes this from the sibling start_crawl, cancel_crawl, and list_crawls tools. It also states the omission behavior for job_id, making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent to use this after starting a crawl, explains how to target the most recent crawl by omitting job_id, and routes the agent to get_issues once finished. This provides clear when-to-use and follow-up guidance.

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