get_generation_status

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses blocking behavior (wait_seconds) and return content (status, paths, errors, logs), but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only and non-destructive. This is adequate but could be more explicit.

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?

Single sentence, no fluff, directly conveys all necessary information. Perfectly concise.

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?

Given the simple input schema (2 params, 100% coverage) and no output schema, the description covers return values and usage context well. It could mention that wait_seconds defaults to 0 (return current state), but this is already in the schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context by linking job_id to generation tools and explaining wait_seconds blocking, but this is already inferred from the schema. Minor added 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 the tool checks a generation/edit job's status, returns status, saved file paths, error details, and logs. It specifies the tools that start these jobs (generate_image, edit_image, generate_with_both), making the purpose distinct from the only sibling (provider_login).

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 when to use the tool (after calling generation tools) and provides clear context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the sibling list is minimal and unrelated, so exclusions are not critical.

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