fleet_operation_status

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the critical guarantee that no device is silently dropped (each resolves to success, specific error, or still_queued) and that results can be partial or complete. This is valuable behavioral context beyond the schema. It could mention auth/rate limits but those are not critical for a status poll.

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 filler, front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence adds an important behavioral guarantee without verbosity.

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?

With a single parameter and an output schema present, the description delivers the essential context: what it polls, what it returns (partial/complete, and the device resolution guarantees). It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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, operation_id, is described as identifying the batch to poll, adding meaning beyond the schema's bare 'Operation Id' title. Since schema coverage is 0%, this mention partially compensates and clarifies the parameter's role.

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 uses a specific verb ('poll') and identifies the resource ('a fleet_read/fleet_write batch') and the key discriminator ('by operation_id'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like fleet_read/fleet_write (which initiate operations) and fleet_status (which likely shows general fleet status).

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?

It clearly implies usage after a fleet_read/fleet_write batch has been issued, with operation_id as the handle. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use fleet_status for...'), so it's one step below full guidance.

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