line_get_operation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read/query operation ('Get') and describes what is returned ('current state and result'), but it does not disclose polling semantics, error behavior, idempotency, or what occurs when the operation_id is invalid or unknown.

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 one concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant repetition of the tool name. It efficiently communicates the core action and target resource.

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 single-parameter read operation this is close to adequate, but it omits guidance about how operation_id is acquired and what shape or semantics the returned 'state and result' have. There is no output schema to fill that gap, so the description leaves meaningful ambiguity for an agent.

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 describes operation_id only as a string with minLength 1, and the description adds no explanation of what operation_id represents, where it comes from, or how to obtain it. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should have compensated, but the parameter is only weakly self-explanatory by name.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('asynchronous gateway operation'), and clarifies that it returns 'current state and result'. It is reasonably distinct from siblings like line_get_status by focusing on an operation, though it does not explicitly contrast with 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 word 'asynchronous' implies this tool should be used when an agent needs the current state or result of an in-flight gateway operation, which provides some usage context. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over sibling tools such as line_get_status, nor any mention of when not to use it.

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