get_operation_progress

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral details: returns progress, ETA, phase information, and supports polling. No contradictions with annotations. It could further clarify error handling for unknown operation_ids.

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 three concise sentences with no extraneous details. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, followed by usage context and a prerequisite note. Every sentence adds value.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage scenario, and key return information. It lacks specification on error behavior for invalid operation IDs, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds no extra meaning to the single parameter beyond what the schema already provides. The description's mention of 'active long-running operations' implicitly clarifies optionality, but the schema explicitly states the parameter is optional.

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 retrieves progress for active long-running operations, specifying the verb 'Get' and resource 'progress for active long-running operations'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on progress tracking rather than status or indexing.

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 indicates this tool is for polling-based progress tracking when push notifications are unavailable. It also notes 'No prior indexing required,' setting expectations. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools for related tasks.

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