get_generation_status

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

Describes polling behavior implying idempotent reads, but lacks detail on error handling, rate limits, or effects of providing both IDs. No annotations present, so description bears full burden; moderate disclosure.

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?

Three concise sentences with no redundancy. First sentence states purpose, second provides usage constraint, third gives follow-up action. Efficient and well-structured.

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?

Covers both poll use cases and next step. Missing details on output structure (e.g., status, blueprintId) but implied by download instruction. Adequate for a straightforward polling tool without output schema.

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 descriptions cover all parameters (100% coverage), but the description adds the critical mutual-exclusivity constraint (exactly one of auditId/jobId) not captured in schema. customerOrgId is not re-explained but schema suffices.

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?

Clearly states the tool polls blueprint or full-pipeline generation status, distinguishing between two distinct workflows. Instructs to call download_blueprint upon completion, providing actionable next-step context that differentiates it from siblings.

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?

Explicitly requires exactly one of auditId or jobId, and specifies the condition to call download_blueprint. However, does not compare to get_progress or other polling tools, nor mention when not to use this tool.

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