Get Wiki page-clone status

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and open-world traits, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real behavioral context beyond them by disclosing the polling loop and the terminal status values. It does not describe pagination or timing/backoff, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then the usage mechanics and the sibling disambiguation. Three short sentences/lines, none of which 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does it: it tells the agent to expect a `status` field with success/failed and a `result.page` naming the clone, which is exactly what is needed to consume the response.

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 the sole parameter is already documented as 'Task id from a page-clone trigger (operation.id)'. The description restates that same linkage, adding minimal meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 resource and action ('status of an async page-clone operation') and explicitly disambiguates from the sibling that polls inline-grid clones. An agent can tell which tool to call without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use path: obtain operation.id from `pages clone`, pass it here, and re-read until status is success or failed. It also names the alternative (operations_clone_inline_grid_get) and the condition that selects it.

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