opensolr_ingest_status

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does convey an informational, non-mutating operation through 'status' and document counts, and adds a reference to the Control Panel. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, handling of unknown job IDs, or whether the status can be polled.

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, compact sentence with a parenthetical that efficiently enumerates the returned status fields. The Control Panel note adds minor context without padding, and there is no redundant or filler wording.

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?

The tool is low-complexity and has an output schema, so return-value details are covered externally. However, the description omits usage context and leaves the sole parameter underdescribed, forcing an agent to infer how to acquire a job_id. It is adequate but 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 input schema only specifies job_id as a required string with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not define job_id, its format, or where to obtain it; it only implicitly connects it to a Data Ingestion job. This is a significant gap at this coverage level.

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 clearly states the tool returns the status of a Data Ingestion job and lists the specific status fields (state, processed/success/failed doc counts). This differentiates it from index-management siblings by focusing on ingestion jobs, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as after starting an ingestion job with opensolr_add_documents or when checking job completion. The note about the Control Panel is informational, not usage direction.

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