Get service file operation

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: states results are retained 24 hours, explains that 'succeeded' returns the answer the original call would have given, warns that 'needsAttention' means the outcome is unknown and files must be inspected, and specifies the 423 response for 2FA-locked servers. Availability gating (agent_update_required, node_update_required, feature_disabled) is unusually thorough behavioral context.

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?

Purpose and states are front-loaded before permissions and availability, so the structure is sound. However it is a single very dense paragraph with heavy semicolon nesting; it would scan faster broken into lines, though almost no sentence is filler.

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 2-param polling tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: the operation states and their semantics, errorCode on failure, retention window, permission prerequisites, and platform-specific availability caveats. Nothing essential is missing.

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 50%: orderNo is documented in the schema (tenant-owned service order number), but operationId is only a pattern. The description compensates by defining operationId as the value returned by a prior file tool, which is meaningful operational context the schema lacks.

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 (poll) and resource (a file operation that answered 202), and enumerates the exact terminal states it reports (pending, running, succeeded, failed, needsAttention) with their meanings. An agent can immediately distinguish this async-status tool from the mutating file siblings (write_service_file, delete_service_files, extract_service_file_archive).

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 says to 'Use the operationId a file tool returned; never repeat the original change instead,' which is a direct when-to-use plus a when-not-to-use instruction. It also lists the gating conditions (files:read explicit grant, vm:files:read for the hosted connector) and the unavailable reasons that must be relayed verbatim.

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