get_research_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states a read-like action ('Get') but does not disclose details such as possible status values, whether the session must exist, error behavior, or any side effects. The minimal wording leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 a single, focused sentence that immediately states the purpose. It is succinct and front-loaded, with no unnecessary words or filler, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the core function. However, it could be slightly more complete by hinting at what 'status' entails (e.g., running, completed, failed) or how to handle missing sessions, but the current form is sufficient for basic selection and invocation.

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 100% coverage for the single parameter (sessionId) with a clear description ('Session ID to check'). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond reiterating that it pertains to a research session, so the baseline 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 'Get the current status of a research session' uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('current status of a research session'), which distinctly identifies the tool's function. It is clearly differentiated from sibling tools like start_research or list_sessions, which have different actions or scopes.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites or context. It simply states the action without explaining scenarios where this tool is preferred over siblings like list_sessions or get_research_status.

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