bdesign_generation_status

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this is a read-only operation, so the description does not need to repeat that. However, the phrase 'when possible, refresh' introduces ambiguity about what refresh means (e.g., triggering a regeneration vs. refreshing local status), and no additional side effects or limitations are disclosed.

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, tight sentence that conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the primary action.

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 is simple, but the description omits important details such as what 'refresh' does, how projectId affects the operation, and what the response looks like. It is not complete enough for an agent to know expected behavior without consulting other documentation.

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 has no descriptions for any parameters, and the tool description offers no explanation of generationId, projectId, or refresh. Parameter meanings are left entirely to inference from their names, which is insufficient for unambiguous use.

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 the action (read and optionally refresh) and the target resource (one generation task). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like generation_history which operate on multiple tasks, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus other generation-related tools (e.g., generation_history or generation_submit). The description gives no context about typical use cases or conditions that would favor this tool.

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