tentra

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation which implies read-only behavior, but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns real-time status or cached data, or what format the status information takes.

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, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple status-checking tool and front-loads the essential information.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what status information is returned, what job_id format is expected, or how this tool relates to the indexing workflow among the many sibling tools.

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 description doesn't mention the 'job_id' parameter at all, and with 0% schema description coverage, the parameter is completely undocumented in both schema and description. However, since there's only one parameter and its purpose is somewhat inferable from context, this meets the baseline for minimal viability.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('status of an indexing job'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential siblings like 'index_code' or 'index_code_continue' that might also provide job status information, preventing a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'index_code' and 'index_code_continue' that might relate to indexing jobs, there's no indication of whether this is for checking status after initiation, monitoring progress, or retrieving results.

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