oci_kafka_get_work_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states that the tool gets status and details, and that it should be polled, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, or side effects. The presence of an output schema is not mentioned, but it exists separately. The description is minimally adequate.

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 concise, with three sentences: purpose, usage guidance, and argument description. It is front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 description covers the essential context: purpose, when to use, and the parameter's source. Since an output schema exists (not shown to us), the description does not need to explain return values. However, it could hint at distinguishing from error/log work request tools, but overall it is complete enough for a simple polling tool.

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, work_request_id, is described as 'Work request OCID returned by the triggering operation', which adds significant context beyond the schema (which has no description). It tells the agent where to obtain the value, making the parameter's purpose and source clear.

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 tool's action 'Get the status and details of an asynchronous OCI work request', specifying both the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like list_work_requests, cancel_work_request, get_work_request_errors, and get_work_request_logs by focusing on the overall status and details.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'Use this after any async operation (create/update/delete cluster, enable superuser, etc.) to track progress. Poll until status is SUCCEEDED or FAILED.' It does not include when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the context is clear and helpful.

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