fiji_module_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the waiting semantics, the running/blocked_by_dialog return states, and the retention policy (last 20 finished runs kept, dialog state surfaced). It doesn't describe token/pagination or error behavior, so it is not exhaustive.

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?

Front-loaded with the follow-vs-list distinction and dense in useful detail with no filler. The em-dash-heavy second sentence is somewhat tangled, but every clause carries information.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description explains the return shape well (run result, running status, blocked_by_dialog, and the run listing with titles, statuses and durations). For an async follow tool with annotations covering safety, this is nearly complete; only edge cases like error/timeout behavior are unaddressed.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema; the description largely restates the empty-job and wait semantics rather than adding new syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: it follows a run started by fiji_module_run, returning either the result or a status of running/blocked_by_dialog, and lists runs when job is empty. The dual mode (follow vs. list) is spelled out and it explicitly names the sibling it complements, so an agent can distinguish it from fiji_module_run without opening the schema.

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?

Clear context: use it to follow a run started by fiji_module_run, and the wait_seconds constraint (default 30, max 40, clients abort ~60s) tells the agent when to poll again. It provides no explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance, so it stops short of a 5.

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