gateway.provision_status

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

The description discloses what the tool returns: 'progress percentage, output log, and final tools when complete.' Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and does so excellently, indicating a read-only operation without side effects.

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 sentences, no redundant words. Key information is front-loaded: purpose, usage context, and return values. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, and what to expect in return. The agent can use it without additional guesswork.

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 defines job_id with a description, but the tool description adds context ('Use after gateway.provision returns a job_id'), clarifying the parameter's origin and purpose, going beyond the schema's minimal description.

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 checks the status of a server installation, specifying the verb 'check' and the resource 'status of a running server installation'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'config_status' or 'health' by focusing on the provisioning lifecycle.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use after gateway.provision returns a job_id.' This provides clear context, though it does not mention when not to use or list alternatives, which would further differentiate it from siblings.

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