panorama_get_commit_status

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds a concrete execution behavior ('show jobs all') plus explicit READ-ONLY labeling. It does not describe the output shape, but the command disclosure is useful beyond annotation 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the READ-ONLY marker, and every clause adds information: what it retrieves and exactly which command it executes. There is no filler or repetition beyond the safety marker.

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 tool, the description and schema are sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it. The lack of an output schema and absence of return-format details are minor gaps, since the command 'show jobs all' anchors expectations.

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 only parameter, firewall, has full schema description coverage at 100%, so the schema carries the semantic load. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable at the baseline for high 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?

States a specific verb and resource: retrieves status of pending commits in Panorama, and uniquely identifies the underlying command 'show jobs all'. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling status tools such as panorama_get_push_status or run_show_command, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 phrase 'status of pending commits' implies when to use the tool, but no alternatives or exclusions are given. With many sibling getters and status commands, the agent must infer why this tool is preferable to related panorama status and command tools.

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