o360_scan_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing the exact return contract (0, positive number, -1) and what -1 represents (finished or unknown). While it doesn't mention error cases or side effects, the read-only nature of a status check is implied and the key behaviors are transparent.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains zero redundant information. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function and behavior.

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 status tool with no output schema, the description is fully complete: it defines the input, the workflow context, and the exact meaning of all possible return values. There are no gaps in what the agent needs to invoke and interpret this tool 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 describes project_name, but the description adds that it is the name 'used when the scan was started' via o360_scan_path, linking the parameter to its origin and adding practical context beyond the schema.

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'), resource ('queue position of an Offensive360 scan'), and scope, and it explicitly references the sibling tool o360_scan_path, distinguishing this as the status-check follow-up. It also clearly explains the meaning of return values, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implicitly guides usage by stating scans are 'started with o360_scan_path', indicating this tool should be used afterward to check status. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but for a single-sibling workflow the context is clear.

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