get_session_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the conditional nature of the final result ('once processing completes') and lists the possible statuses, which is valuable. It does not mention side effects, but the verb 'Returns' strongly implies a read-only operation.

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?

A single sentence with no fluff, front-loaded with the core action. Every clause adds useful detail about what is returned and when.

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 getter with no output schema, the description fully explains the return value (status and result format). It covers the scope of the tool sufficiently and leaves no major gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 schema already provides a fully descriptive comment for session_id (100% coverage), so the description adds no extra parameter information. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting and the description does not contradict or expand it.

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 it 'Returns the current status' of a session, enumerating the exact statuses and the final result. It is unmistakably a status-checking tool, distinct from the run_* sibling tools that initiate sessions.

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 description implies usage after starting a session (via run_research or run_agent) by referencing those session types, and the schema clarifies the session_id source. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though none really exist for this purpose.

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