Get Report Generation Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the title's meaning—no details about return format, polling behavior, or potential errors. It doesn't contradict the annotations but provides zero additional transparency.

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 with no fluff, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it is so minimal that it borders on tautological with the title, though it still conveys the core purpose efficiently.

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, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., status values, progress percentage). It only says 'check the progress,' leaving return semantics ambiguous. It also doesn't clarify the relationship between task_id and simulation_id or which one to use. The presence of similar sibling tools increases ambiguity.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't mention parameters, but the schema already explains task_id and simulation_id. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 report generation' clearly states the action and resource. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like mirofish_get_report_progress or mirofish_check_report_status, which likely serve similar purposes. The verb 'check' is specific, but differentiation is absent.

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 mention prerequisites (e.g., after calling generate_report), nor does it reference any sibling tools. There is no context for choosing this over mirofish_get_task, mirofish_get_report_progress, or mirofish_check_report_status.

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