QMetry: Fetch Automation Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe, repeatable nature of the call is established without the description. The description adds some context by stating that the response contains status, progress, and details, but it does not cover potential operational traits such as eventual consistency, polling intervals, or error conditions.

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 front-loaded with a clear one-sentence purpose and uses helpful sections for use cases and examples. However, the 'Parameters' section largely duplicates the input schema, and the use-case list has a formatting artifact ('1. 1.'), so not every section 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 two-parameter, read-only status lookup with no output schema, the description covers the request ID provenance, the optional project key, a concrete JSON example, and a summary of the expected output. It could be more complete by naming the companion import tool that returns the request ID and by specifying the exact result fields, but these are minor gaps.

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%, and the description mostly restates the schema's parameter docs. It does reinforce the critical naming warning ('requestID', not requestId/jobId), but that warning is already present in the schema, so no new meaning is added. There is also a slight tension between schema type 'number' and the text saying it accepts a string or number.

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 opening sentence uses a specific verb ('Fetches'), resource ('status of an automation import job'), and lookup key ('request ID'), so it is immediately distinguishable from the many other qmetry fetch tools. Use cases reinforce that this is a polling/monitoring operation rather than a mutation or test-execution tool.

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?

Three explicit use cases tell an agent when this tool applies: checking completion, retrieving status/progress/details, and monitoring CI/CD automation result processing. It does not name when-not-to-use or point to a sibling like qmetry_import_automation_test_results, so it stops short of explicit alternative guidance.

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