system-operations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses one non-obvious trait (works even while the main thread is busy) but lacks details on read-only nature, output format, or side effects. This is minimal but not misleading.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with a parenthetical qualifier. Every word earns its place, and it avoids redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is somewhat complete but lacks detail on what the returned progress data looks like (e.g., list of operation IDs, statuses). Given the lack of output schema, it would be better to describe the response shape. Still, it's adequate for a polling 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and there's no extra value to add.

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 lists in-flight and recent operations with progress, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like system-health and system-cancel by focusing on the operation list, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate among them.

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 usage for checking operation status but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. The note about working while the main thread is busy offers context but doesn't mention any exclusion or alternative tools.

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