spidra_check_crawl_status

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds valuable behavioral detail: it explains that running jobs return progress (pagesCrawled/maxPages) and completed jobs return extracted data. It also categorizes job statuses into in-progress and terminal, which is helpful context.

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 three sentences long, with the main purpose in the first sentence and relevant details about return values and statuses in the following sentences. There is no redundant or extraneous content.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, read-only) and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains what the caller can expect: progress for running jobs, extracted data for completed jobs, and the meaning of each status. It is complete for its purpose.

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 schema already provides full coverage for the single parameter with the description 'The crawl job id returned by spidra_crawl.' The tool description only reiterates that it is checked by jobId, adding no new semantic information beyond what the schema states.

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's function: 'Check the status of a crawl job by jobId.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing specifically on crawl jobs and by describing the returned data based on job status.

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 clearly indicates this is for checking crawl job status, and the parameter description specifies the jobId comes from spidra_crawl. It does not explicitly name alternatives like check_scrape_status, but the context is clear and unambiguous.

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