console_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds substantial context beyond that: no completion or side effects occur, results are finalized independently of this call, and — critically — the default output can bury 'warnings / error' under 300+ artifact lines (5 per sample × 60 samples). That is exactly the kind of output-volume and data-shape behavior an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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?

Purpose and the read-only/no-finalization caveat are front-loaded, then each parameter gets a compact block. Nothing is padding — even the numeric detail (5 artifacts per sample, 60 samples) exists to justify the default, so an agent can decide correctly rather than guess.

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?

With no output schema and zero schema coverage, the description covers the two parameters and hints at return fields (artifact_count, artifacts_by_role, warnings, error). It never enumerates the status values or the remaining top-level response fields, so an agent still has some uncertainty about what 'current status' actually contains, but nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does: job_path is defined as a path to analysis-job.json with a stated default (session.current_job_path), and include_artifacts gets its default, its effect (full TSV listing), the reason it is off by default (300+ rows swamping warnings/error), and the specific situation that justifies True (locating missing paths).

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('returns the current status of a job') and immediately defines the negative scope — it only reads persisted state and does not perform completion processing. It also names the actor that does the finishing work (the detached worker started by console_run), which cleanly separates it from the sibling console_run.

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?

It says explicitly that calling this tool is not required for results to be finalized, which prevents an agent from polling it as a necessary step, and it implies its monitoring role. It does not, however, compare itself with the other status/enumeration siblings (job_list, pipeline_status, dataset_status) or state when the agent should prefer one over another.

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