Get Design Status

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is low. The description adds conditional behavior the annotations don't: which states are possible and that 'result' appears only when completed while 'error' appears only when failed, which tells the agent how to interpret terminal versus in-flight responses.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, no filler. Every clause contributes either routing context or state semantics.

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 single-parameter polling tool with rich annotations and an output schema, nothing an agent needs is missing. The description covers origin of the job, expected states, and how to read terminal responses.

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% and the single job_id parameter is already documented as coming from submit_design_job, so the schema carries the load. The description's mention of job_id adds nothing beyond that baseline.

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?

States a specific verb (poll status) and resource (background design job), and ties it directly to the sibling that creates the job, submit_design_job. Enumeration of the status values makes the tool's scope unmistakable against siblings like cancel_design or analyze_design.

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?

Clearly signals the context of use: a job previously started via submit_design_job, i.e., polling until completion. It does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., to abort a job use cancel_design), so it falls short of full alternative routing, but the use case is unambiguous.

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