mission_status

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does clarify the kinds of information returned (status, audit events, cost, final result), but it doesn't address side effects, authentication needs, error behavior, or output shape. The verb 'check' implies read-only, but the description doesn't explicitly confirm it.

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 that is tight and front-loaded with the action and object list. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or repetition.

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 one-parameter status tool with no output schema, the description does a good job of indicating what the user will learn by naming the categories returned. It omits edge cases such as what happens when a mission_id does not exist or how cost is computed, but these are minor gaps for a straightforward status check.

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%, so the schema already explains mission_id thoroughly as the id from start_mission. The tool description reinforces that connection but adds no new parameter-level meaning. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Check') and a well-defined resource (status, audit events, cost, and final result for a mission). It explicitly ties the tool to missions started via start_mission, which distinguishes it from siblings like list_missions or check_workspace_status. This leaves no doubt about what the tool does.

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 clearly frames when to use it: for a mission that was started via start_mission. This is useful contextual signal. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, so it stopst short of full guidance.

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