surrogate_status

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by stating that it reports progress, later includes a held-out-point check, and surfaces warnings, but it does not explain status states, blocking behavior, or the shape of the progress/check data.

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 definition is two compact sentences with the main purpose front-loaded and no filler. The phrase 'and once done the check on held-out points and any warnings' is slightly dense, but every sentence contributes useful information.

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 read-only status tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description sketches the return content (progress, held-out check, warnings) and the all-studies behavior. It still leaves gaps around what progress values look like, what the check means, and how language affects output, which matters because no output schema documents the response.

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 0%, so the description should carry parameter meaning. It does explain the key study_id behavior ('Without study_id: all of them'), but says nothing about the language parameter beyond what its enum and default already convey. The most important parameter is clarified, but coverage is incomplete.

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 the resource and what it reports: progress of a surrogate build, plus held-out-point checks and warnings once complete. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as build_surrogate, control_surrogate, or surrogate_predict, so it falls short of a 5.

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 phrase 'Without study_id: all of them' gives useful filtering behavior, implying you can scope the status to one study or list all studies. However, it does not say when to call this versus build_surrogate, control_surrogate, or surrogate_predict, leaving the agent to infer the workflow.

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