server_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. 'Return' indicates a read-only, non-mutating operation, and the description names the key data points (progress, cancellation state), but it does not mention error behavior, whether the tool blocks or polls, or what happens for unknown operation IDs.

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 clear sentence with no filler or redundancy. All essential information is front-loaded, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 single-parameter status tool with an output schema available, the description is largely sufficient. It identifies the operation scope and the two key aspects returned (progress and cancellation state), though it could mention error cases or relationship to cancellation actions.

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 one required parameter, operation_id, with no description coverage. The phrase 'for one operation' helps connect operation_id to the tool's purpose, but the description does not clarify where operation_id comes from or any special format requirements. The parameter is self-explanatory enough that the minimal description provides some value.

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 a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('detailed progress and cancellation state for one operation'), making the tool's purpose understandable. It distinguishes itself from list-style operations through the phrase 'one operation', though it does not explicitly name any sibling tool.

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 that this tool is used when you need status details for a specific operation, particularly progress and cancellation state. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it relates to alternatives like server_list_operations or server_cancel_operation.

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