sweep_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool summarizes counts and points to the results table, but it does not mention side effects, read-only nature, error behavior for nonexistent sweeps, or whether any state is modified. This is adequate for a simple status query but not rich.

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 compact and front-loaded, with a single high-signal summary sentence followed by a short parameter definition. No words are wasted, and the structure makes the main behavior immediately clear.

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?

Given the tool has only one parameter, an output schema, and a relatively simple behavior, the description is nearly complete. It specifies the output content (counts and table location) and the parameter meaning. It lacks only usage-context guidance, but that is adequately covered by other dimensions.

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 input schema only declares a string property with no description, so the description's 'Args' section is essential. It compensates well by explaining that 'sweep' means the name given when the sweep was launched, which clarifies exactly what value the agent should pass.

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 names a specific verb ('Summarise') and a concrete resource ('a parametric sweep'), and further specifies the scope by listing status categories and the results table location. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like 'start_sweep' or 'get_results', though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_results', 'list_parked_failures', or 'get_job_status'. The phrasing implies it is for checking sweep status after a launch, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions are provided.

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