gamma_get_generation

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

No annotations provided, so the description must convey behavior. It discloses polling as the primary action but lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or auth requirements. For a simple status check, this is adequate but not exhaustive. More context on potential response fields or failure modes would elevate transparency.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, each carrying essential information: purpose and polling behavior. No superfluous words. It front-loads the action ('Check the status') and provides a clear instruction ('Poll until status is completed').

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the critical aspects: what it does and how to use it (polling). It does not detail the response format or error states, but for a polling status check, this level of completeness is sufficient. An example or more explicit success/failure cues would make it fully 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?

The sole parameter 'generationId' has a clear description in the schema ('The generation ID returned from gamma_generate'), and the tool description adds value by explaining the polling context and expected status field. This goes beyond the schema, helping the agent understand the parameter's role in the overall workflow.

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 purpose: checking the status of a gamma generation and polling until completion. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like gamma_generate (which creates) and gamma_list_folders/themes (which list resources), making the tool's specific role unambiguous.

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 after generating, with polling behavior ('Poll until status is completed'). While it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, the context of generation and polling is clear. An explicit exclusion (e.g., 'Do not use before generating') would improve, but current guidance is sufficient.

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