agy_status

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses only one behavioral trait: compactness by default. Missing other traits like whether the tool is read-only, rate limits, or authorization requirements. For a status tool, more context (e.g., polling behavior) would be helpful.

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?

Description is very short (6 words) and front-loaded. Every word serves purpose. However, conciseness slightly compromises clarity; a brief expansion on 'run status' would improve without adding bloat.

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?

Tool is simple with 2 parameters and no annotations. Description is too sparse; it doesn't explain what 'run status' entails or how 'compact' modifies output. While an output schema exists, the description should still cover minimal usage context for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 description must compensate. It relates 'compact' to default behavior but does not explain 'run_id' meaning or format. One of two parameters is partially documented, which is insufficient for 0% schema coverage.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Return') and resource ('run status'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'agy_result' (returns result) and 'agy_transcript' (returns transcript). However, it lacks specific scope details like what constitutes a run status.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or prerequisites. The only hint is 'compact by default', which implies a preference but not context for choosing this tool over siblings.

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