scf_get_recipe_generation_status

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description adds useful behavioral context: the operation is an async polling call for a queued job, implying it can be called repeatedly without side effects. It doesn't disclose the full status lifecycle, but the polling guidance adds real value beyond annotations.

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 with no wasted words. The purpose is stated first, and the second sentence gives a direct actionable usage instruction referencing the prerequisite tool. 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 simple 2-parameter read-only status tool, the description plus schema provides enough to select and invoke correctly: required IDs, their provenance, and the prerequisite generation call. Since there is no output schema, a note about possible status values would be a nice addition, but its absence does not block correct invocation.

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 input schema already provides 100% parameter coverage with helpful descriptions for both org_id and system_id, including where to obtain them. The tool description adds no parameter-level information, so the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb ('Get the status') with a clear resource ('queued AI recipe-generation job for a system'). It distinguishes itself from the generation tool by explicitly framing this as the status-check step, so an agent can tell it apart from scf_generate_system_recipes.

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 says to poll this after scf_generate_system_recipes, giving a clear triggering context and sequencing. It does not enumerate exclusions or alternative tools, but for a standalone status poll the usage guidance is sufficient.

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