get_operation_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 does disclose a key behavioral trait: this read does not contact Intervals, implying it returns a locally stored/durable status. However, it doesn't disclose what happens if the operation is not found, whether the status is stale, or whether this is a safe/idempotent read. The description adds some value but leaves important behavioral gaps.

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?

A single, dense sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then adds the key qualifier. Every word earns its place. No fluff, no repetition of schema details.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered elsewhere. The description is adequate for a simple one-parameter read, but it doesn't explain the relationship to execute_operation or recover_operation, nor does it clarify what 'durable' means in this context. For a status-checking tool, an agent would benefit from knowing whether this is the canonical way to poll operation progress.

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%, so the description must compensate. The description names the operation_uid parameter implicitly through 'typed-operation status' but doesn't explain what a valid operation_uid looks like, how to obtain one, or what 'typed-operation' means. With only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the description's lack of detail about the parameter's origin or format drops it to 3.

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 states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('durable typed-operation status') and adds a meaningful qualifier ('without contacting Intervals'). This distinguishes it from execute_operation and recover_operation, though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings. The phrase 'durable typed-operation status' is somewhat technical but clear enough for an agent familiar with the domain.

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 implies this is a lightweight read path ('without contacting Intervals'), which suggests when to use it: when you need the cached/durable status rather than a live check. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over execute_operation or recover_operation, nor does it mention any prerequisites or side effects. The usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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