check_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'check the status,' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose whether the call is blocking, what it returns on success or failure, or any required authentication. Minimal transparency beyond the obvious.

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 that is clear and precise. It states exactly what the tool does without any filler words or unnecessary detail. Perfectly concise and front-loaded.

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's simplicity, the description is minimally adequate but lacks important context. There is no output schema, and the description does not mention what status information is returned (e.g., pending, running, completed, failed). It also fails to indicate the typical usage pattern of polling after analyze_repo, which would help the agent understand the job lifecycle. The description should provide more context to be fully effective.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter job_id, with the schema explicitly stating it is 'The job ID returned from analyze_repo.' This already links the parameter to a sibling tool, so the description adds no additional parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: checking the status of a Revibe analysis job. The verb 'check' and resource 'status of a Revibe analysis job' are specific, and this distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_repo, get_summary, and get_section, which focus on different stages or data.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used after analyze_repo returns a job_id, nor does it suggest polling behavior or conditions that trigger its use. The context is implied by the name and schema reference, but the description itself lacks this information.

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