check_pipeline_status

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the polling pattern (15-30 seconds) but lacks safety guarantees (read-only vs destructive), possible error states (invalid job_id), or return value structure (possible status states).

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?

Three sentences covering purpose, usage context, and polling frequency, followed by Args documentation. No redundant information; efficiently front-loaded with essential operational guidance.

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?

For a single-parameter async monitoring tool, covers invocation pattern well. However, lacks description of return values (e.g., possible states like running/completed/failed) which is needed given no output schema exists.

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 has 0% description coverage (only title and type). Description compensates by specifying job_id is 'returned by any auto_ pipeline tool', providing crucial semantic context about the parameter's origin and relationship to other tools.

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 uses specific verb 'Check' with clear resource 'status of a running pipeline'. Explicitly distinguishes from sibling check_transcription_status by specifying use with 'auto_ pipeline' tools.

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?

Provides explicit temporal guidance: 'Call this after starting any auto_ pipeline' and specific operational instruction 'Poll every 15-30 seconds', giving clear when-to-use and how-to-use instructions.

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