chrysalide_get_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 the non-blocking behavior ('Non-bloquant') which is useful. However, it doesn't clarify what states can be returned, whether status represents a failure/pending/completed state, or what happens if the job_id is invalid.

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 extremely brief — one short sentence. This is appropriately concise for a simple status check tool with one parameter. No wasted words.

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?

There's no output schema and only one parameter. For a simple status polling tool, the description is somewhat thin — it doesn't explain the possible return states, whether the call can block under any condition, or how polling semantics work. Given no annotations and no output schema, more could be provided.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the job_id parameter as 'L'identifiant du job'. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool returns the current status of a job, with a clear verb-resource ('Retourne l'état courant d'un job'). It doesn't explicitly distinguish it from siblings like chrysalide_get_report, but the resource (status vs report) is implied. Non-bloquant clarifies the non-blocking nature.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't explain when a user would want the job status versus getting a report or cancelling/starting a task. The 'Non-bloquant' note hints at use context (async polling) but no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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