get_session_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It does disclose the pollable statuses and the intended polling pattern, but it does not mention failure modes, rate limits, or implications of repeated polling. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no redundant information. 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 simple one-parameter polling tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential states and the key usage context. It does not detail polling termination or error behavior, but the description is otherwise complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not mention the sessionId parameter at all. Although the parameter name is fairly self-explanatory, the description should have compensated for the lack of schema descriptions, e.g., by noting the sessionId should come from send_message. It does not.

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 session status with specific states (idle, working, errored). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_workspace_status by focusing on coding agent sessions and by referencing send_message as a preceding action.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool ('after send_message to know when the agent finished'), which is clear actionable guidance. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for correct usage.

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