Check a running trace

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable context: the tool is free and provides polling guidance, which helps agents understand rate limits and avoid abuse. However, it doesn't detail what fields the status response includes, but that's minor given 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 extremely concise—three short sentences, each adding value: purpose, workflow, and polling guidance. No fluff, perfectly efficient.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It covers the workflow and usage constraints. It doesn't mention what the response contains (e.g., status values), but that's not critical for a polling tool and the output schema is absent, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 input schema already provides full coverage for the single parameter (job_id with description 'Job id returned by start_trace'). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool polls a trace started with start_trace, using the verb 'poll' and specifying the resource (a running trace). It distinguishes itself from start_trace and read_report by indicating its role in the workflow, though it could explicitly mention it returns status updates.

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 explicitly states when to use it (after start_trace) and when not to (when status is done, use read_report). It also provides polling interval guidance (every 10-15s, not tight loop), which is clear usage direction.

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