check_crawl_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only says 'check progress' without disclosing whether the operation is idempotent, safe (read-only), or what the output format is (e.g., status, percentage, errors). This is insufficient for an agent to understand behavioral implications.

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 sentence, concise and front-loaded. However, it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose. It earns its place but leaves room for improvement.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description should explain the return value or result of checking progress. It does not mention what fields or statuses are returned, making it incomplete for an agent to interpret the response. The tool's simplicity (1 param) does not excuse this omission.

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 100% with one parameter 'id' described as 'Crawl job ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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 'Check crawl job progress' clearly states the verb and resource, indicating the tool monitors an ongoing crawl job. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'crawl' (initiates), 'scrape' (one-time), and 'search' (queries). However, it could be more specific about what 'progress' entails.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not say to use after starting a crawl with the 'crawl' tool or to avoid for completed jobs. The description lacks context for appropriate invocation.

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