render-status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool checks statuses and reads log tails, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, what happens for invalid PIDs, or any permission requirements, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.

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 a single, highly informative sentence. Every clause adds value: the tool scope, the specific checks, and the log output. No redundant or filler content exists.

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 low-complexity status tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool reports (running/finished statuses and log tails). It lacks explicit mention of the return format, but the description gives enough conceptual detail for correct selection and invocation.

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%: the pid parameter is described as 'Optional specific render PID. If omitted, reports all tracked renders.' The tool description adds no additional parameter detail, so it does not elevate beyond the schema 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Check') and identifies the exact resource ('background aerender renders started with render-aerender'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by scoping it to aerender background renders and specifying outputs (running/finished status, log tails), which sets it apart from render-queue or start-render.

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 specifies when to use this tool: after renders have been started with render-aerender. It clearly implies the usage context (checking status of those background renders) without explicitly naming alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is unambiguous.

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