Get Wiki grid-clone status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the tool is a polling endpoint, the terminal states are 'success' or 'failed', and on success result.grid_id names the copy. It does not mention polling cadence, intermediate states, or failure payloads, so it stops short of 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?

Three tight sentences: what it is, how to drive it, and how it differs from the sibling. Front-loaded with the core purpose and free of 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 appropriately explains the returned status values and the result.grid_id field. It omits any note on polling interval/backoff or what a non-terminal status looks like, which for a polling endpoint would complete the picture.

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 task_id is already documented as 'Task id from a grid-clone trigger (operation.id)'. The description still adds value by tying the value's origin to the specific 'grids clone' write call as a workflow, making the provenance explicit rather than merely restating the field.

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 ('Status of an async inline-grid-clone operation') and immediately names the sibling it is not: 'operations_clone_get polls page clones instead.' An agent can distinguish it from the page-clone and move-operation siblings without opening any 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 explicit when-to-use guidance ('poll it until it finishes... re-read until status is success or failed'), states the trigger for use (grids clone returns an operation.id), and names the alternative tool for the page-clone case. Nothing is left to inference.

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