acronis_fetch_response_action_status

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds that the action was 'started on an incident', hinting at a prior initiation step, but says nothing about what statuses look like, whether polling is expected, or how long results persist.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the example earning its place by disambiguating 'response action'. No wasted wording, though it is thin enough that structure is not a differentiator.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should say something about the returned status values (e.g. pending/succeeded/failed) but does not. For a simple read tool with full schema coverage it is adequate, but the return semantics remain undefined.

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% and both required parameters (incident_id path param, activity_id query param) are documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies; it notably does not emphasize that both IDs are needed to identify the action.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Gets the status of a response action') and adds a concrete example ('isolating a machine') that clarifies what a response action is. It is distinguishable from siblings like acronis_fetch_incident, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Implies the use case: after starting a response action on an incident, poll this for its status. But it gives no explicit when-to-use conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives, and does not warn against using it for the incident itself.

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