get_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the tool's purpose as a monitoring/read operation, explains the frequency of use, and details the status.warning field's importance. It does not contradict any annotations (none provided) and provides rich context beyond the basic tool name.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and includes a clearly structured critical usage section with numbered points. Each sentence adds value, but the CRITICAL section is somewhat lengthy for a no-parameter status tool. Still, it is well-organized and not wasteful.

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?

Despite having no parameters, annotations, or output schema, the description is complete enough to use the tool correctly. It explains what data will be returned, how often to poll, and what actions to take based on the status. The sibling tool names provide further context on its role in the transcription workflow.

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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% by default. The baseline for 0 params is 4. The description does not add parameter-specific details (none needed), but it does describe the output fields (running, chunks, errors, duration), which is relevant context even though not strictly about parameters.

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 gets the current status of a transcription session, listing specific components (running state, chunks processed, errors, duration). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling lifecycle tools like start, pause, and stop.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: check every 30-60 seconds during active transcription, with concrete scenarios like catching audio routing issues, monitoring long sessions, and detecting paused states. It also instructs on what to do (show alerts to user), which is actionable and clear.

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