scf_get_document_generation_status

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses it's a read operation for viewer role and specifies the idle return value, but does not enumerate other possible statuses (e.g., running, completed, failed) which an agent would need to know when to stop polling. This is a moderate gap.

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 concise sentences that are front-loaded with the verb and purpose, efficiently covering usage and key behavior without waste.

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 poll tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides the essential trigger and the idle case. However, it leaves the completion status unspecified, which is a minor gap given the instruction to poll until complete.

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% for the single parameter org_id, which already has a descriptive explanation. The tool description adds no additional context about the parameter, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 polls document generation status, mentions it's a read operation, and explicitly differentiates from the generation tool. It names the specific resource and verb, and implies its role relative to scf_generate_documents.

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?

Explicitly instructs to call after scf_generate_documents until completion, providing clear when-to-use context. It also distinguishes itself from similar status tools like scf_get_recipe_generation_status by naming the preceding action.

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