wbpp_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses the possible run states (running, finished with exit code, ended without exit record) and the full contents of what is reported. It does not cover failure modes (e.g., unknown run_id) or whether output is read-only, but for a status-report tool this is solid disclosure.

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?

Effectively a single front-loaded sentence that leads with the action and the run states, then enumerates return contents. The long list is dense but every element earns its place; minor room for tightening.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description appropriately explains return values in detail, which is exactly what is needed here. It is largely complete, with only minor gaps around edge cases such as an invalid or missing run_id.

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 100%, with both run_id and tail_lines fully documented including defaults. The description restates the run_id default (latest run) but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Report) and resource (a run_wbpp run) and enumerates exactly what is reported: status states, exit code, master files, per-subfolder .xisf counts, logs, and console tail. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling run_wbpp (which executes the run) and job_status.

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 provides useful context that omitting run_id reports the latest run, which implicitly tells the agent this is the status-checking counterpart to run_wbpp. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and does not clarify its relationship to the sibling job_status.

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