Get Operation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by explaining the status vocabulary and the timeout-retry contract, which annotations cannot express.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then status meanings, then retry guidance. Efficient, with only mild redundancy against the schema's own retry note.

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?

An output schema exists so return shape needn't be described; the description supplies the status semantics an agent needs to interpret it and the retry rule for uncertain commands. Complete enough for a single-parameter read 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema description already states 'Reuse the SAME ID and parameters when retrying; never regenerate on a timeout', so the description's retry sentence largely duplicates structured data. The 'request_id' vs 'operation_id' naming mismatch slightly detracts rather than adds.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read a proposed operation by its request_id'), clearly distinct from siblings like cancel_operation, get_editor_status, and preview_animation. Minor flaw: it calls the key 'request_id' while the schema names it 'operation_id', which could momentarily confuse an agent.

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?

Gives concrete usage context by interpreting result states (applied = completed, pending_approval = artist must approve in Blockbench) and prescribes retry behavior with the original ID and parameters. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for cancellation, which the cancel_operation sibling would cover.

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