vocametrix_get_therapy_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the polling nature, status lifecycle, and the result_available flag. It does not mention rate limits or read-only behavior, but for a status poller, the key behaviors are covered.

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 concise—two sentences with no filler. The first sentence immediately states the purpose, and the second explains the statuses and next action. Every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter polling tool without output schema, the description sufficiently covers the workflow: statuses and result availability. It could mention the response structure slightly more, but the mention of result_available implies Boolean flag. Overall adequate.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter (sessionId) with a clear description of its origin. The description adds no additional semantic meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema already states.

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 polls status for async therapy plan generation or stuttering classification. It explicitly lists status progression (pending → processing → pending_approval → complete/failed) and distinguishes from sibling vocametrix_get_therapy_result by noting when result_available is true.

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 tells when to use the tool (polling status) and provides a clear next step (call vocametrix_get_therapy_result when result_available is true). It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an AI agent.

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