flow_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It correctly implies a non-mutating read operation through 'Check' and adds the 'latest progress line' detail. It does not disclose error behavior, job ownership requirements, or what happens when a job has completed or failed, making it adequate but not rich.

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?

One concise sentence that front-loads the action and the returned information. There is no filler, no repetition of the schema, and no unnecessary detail.

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 status tool with one parameter and an output schema, this gives the essential purpose. It lacks usage context about when to poll versus using related tools, and it doesn't clarify where job_id comes from, so it is not fully complete.

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 exposes a single self-explanatory job_id string, and the description ties it to 'a Flow job'. However, it doesn't explain how to obtain the job_id or any format expectations, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the added parameter meaning is minimal.

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 names a specific action ('Check whether a Flow job is still running') and a concrete output trait ('latest progress line'), so the purpose is clear. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like flow_jobs or flow_log_tail, but the verb+resource makes it identifiable as a status check.

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?

No guidance is given about when to call this instead of related tools such as flow_jobs, flow_log_tail, or flow_cancel, nor where the job_id should come from. The phrase 'still running' implies polling, but the description never states it.

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