get_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 behavior. It states 'Retrieve', which implies a read-only operation, but does not describe side effects, error conditions (e.g., what happens if no check has run), required permissions, or the structure of the returned 'full structured results'. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, concise sentence that leads with the verb and resource. It frontloads the key action and object without any fluff or redundant wording. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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 that there are no parameters and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It conveys that the tool returns status and structured results of the last validation check, but it doesn't specify what 'validation check' refers to in this context, what fields the results contain, or how to interpret errors if no check has been run. Siblings like run_checks and run_staged_checks imply a workflow, but the description doesn't connect to that.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description doesn't need to add parameter details because there are none. The description's mention of 'status and full structured results' aligns with the expected output, but since there are no parameters, it fully satisfies the dimension.

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 'Retrieve' and the resource 'status and full structured results of the last validation check run', which is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like run_checks or run_staged_checks. However, it does not explicitly name any siblings or contrast itself, so it stops short of a full 5.

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. It doesn't say 'use this to get previous results without running new checks' or mention any exclusion criteria. The only clue is the phrase 'last validation check run', which implies retrieval but does not explicitly state the use case or conditions.

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