Get Preparation Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds no additional behavioral context beyond restating the core action. It does not disclose return format, error behaviors, or how progress is measured, so it fails to add value beyond the annotations.

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 with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and immediately conveys the tool's purpose, though it lacks additional useful details. The brevity is a strength but leaves some gaps covered in other dimensions.

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?

For a status-checking tool with no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what 'progress' looks like, whether a task_id or simulation_id is required, or what a successful response contains. This incompleteness makes it hard for an agent to know what to expect.

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 both parameters ('task_id' and 'simulation_id') described. The description adds no extra meaning about parameter usage or relationships, but the schema already provides sufficient semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the progress of simulation preparation' clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like simulation run status or report generation status, though it does not explicitly mention alternative tools.

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 like mirofish_get_task or mirofish_simulation_run_status. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction for tool selection.

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