Check a generation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description adds value by clarifying that it is a polling operation that reports running status and returns the completed creation once available. It also discloses that it costs nothing, going beyond the structured metadata. No contradiction with annotations.

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 three sentences, each adding essential information: what the tool does, the trigger condition, the behavior, and the cost. It is front-loaded with the main action ('Look up a generation by its queueId') and contains no filler. Extremely efficient.

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 one-parameter read-only lookup, the description covers the purpose, when to use it, what it reports, what it returns, and the cost. The lack of an output schema is acceptable because the behavior is straightforward. It could mention edge cases like invalid queueId, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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 schema describes queueId simply as 'The queueId from a previous generate_* call.' The tool description enriches this by explaining that the queueId is the one returned when a generate_* call outlived its wait budget, providing important context for why the agent would have this ID. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but this extra semantic detail justifies a 4.

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 clearly states it looks up a generation by queueId and specifies the exact source of that ID (from a generate_* call that outlived its wait budget). It also explains what it reports (running status) and what it returns (finished creation), making its purpose distinct from sibling generate and cancel 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?

It explicitly indicates when to use this tool: when a generate_* call times out and you need to check the result. It also notes that it costs nothing, which is an implicit reason to prefer it over other operations. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent.

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