timelapse_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 that the tool 'returns' status data, implying a read-only operation, and specifies the returned content. It does not mention edge cases (e.g., no active job), but for a simple status query this is sufficient.

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 a single, concise sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and key return fields. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, a status query) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context. It names the core data points returned (shot count, errors, save destination), making the tool's behavior clear without needing extensive elaboration.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is trivially 100% covered. Per the guidelines, this is a baseline 4 because there is nothing to document; the description correctly does not add unnecessary parameter details.

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 tool returns the progress status of a timelapse job, specifying the details (shot count, errors, save destination). This action is distinct from sibling tools like timelapse_start/stop or timelapse_list, which manage or list jobs rather than report 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?

The usage context is implied: use this to check the progress of a timelapse job. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use it versus siblings, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It lacks direct guidance on when not to use it.

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