Installation job status, installed packages

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, it discloses a meaningful terminal condition ('done when it reports committed') and the dual-mode behavior. It does not contradict the annotations and adds useful behavioral context, though it doesn't cover failure handling or response shape.

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?

The description is a single sentence with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the alternative mode is clearly introduced by 'or' with the conditional 'when no id is given.'

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?

The dual-mode behavior, the optionality of jobId, and the job completion condition are all described, while the readOnly/openWorld annotations cover the safety profile. The main gap is the absence of response-shape details, especially since there is no output schema, but the title and 'lists the packages' provide enough orientation for 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 schema has a single optional jobId with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining the parameter's presence/absence semantics: with an id it follows the job, without one it lists installed packages. This is exactly the meaning missing from the schema.

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 states two specific behaviors: 'Follows an installation job by id' and 'lists the packages installed through the Workshop when no id is given.' This clearly distinguishes it from related siblings like open77_workshop_install and open77_workshop_status.

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?

It gives explicit context for when to use each mode: provide an id to follow a job, omit it to list installed packages. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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