SecureInput status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the call returns input mode plus pending request IDs, but never explains what "input mode" values mean or how pending IDs relate to the other request tools.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though it borders on under-specification given the unexplained domain term.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry the return contract, and it only sketches it: "input mode" and "pending request IDs" are named but not characterized. For a zero-param read tool that is acceptable but leaves real ambiguity about what an agent receives and how to use it.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema leaves nothing to document; baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a no-argument, poll-style call.

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?

A specific verb ("Get") paired with two concrete outputs (input mode, pending request IDs) tells an agent what it retrieves. However, it does nothing to distinguish this from overlapping siblings like inline_request_status or check_secret_request, and "input mode" is left undefined.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the closely related sibling tools for checking secret/request status. The agent is left to infer that this is a general state poll rather than a per-request check.

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