neurover_cleanup_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no indication of whether the status is pollable, what states exist, or whether the job may have expired — all of which matter for an async job-status endpoint.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no wasted wording, and the key information is front-loaded. But brevity here comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficient communication.

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 one required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations explaining return values, the description is the only place an agent could learn what a status response contains or how to interpret it. It supplies none of that, so the definition is not complete enough for correct invocation in a cleanup workflow.

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% for the single parameter, so the description must carry the burden. "по jobId" only confirms that the UUID identifies a cleanup job; it does not say where the jobId originates, whether it must be from a cleanup_start call, or what happens if the job is unknown.

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?

"Статус очистки по jobId" names a specific resource (cleanup status) and the key it is looked up by, so the basic purpose is inferable. However, it does not distinguish this from the many sibling cleanup tools (cleanup_report, cleanup_verify, cleanup_scan, cleanup_step), leaving the agent to guess how a 'status' differs from a 'report' or 'verify'.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when a jobId exists, and no pointer to the tools that produce a jobId (cleanup_start / cleanup_new). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and the single required parameter.

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