get_request_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It explains the tool returns status, progress, timing, and is intended for automation. It does not disclose authorization needs or side effects, but for a read-only operation this is adequate.

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?

The description is well-structured with sections, but somewhat verbose. It could be more concise without losing key information. Overall it is clear and logically organized.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description adequately outlines return values (status, progress, timing). It lacks details on error conditions or retry logic, but is sufficient for a simple status retrieval tool.

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?

The description explains the 'request_id' parameter's purpose and type (int), but the input schema declares it as a string. This contradiction could mislead an agent. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description adds some meaning, but the inconsistency reduces reliability.

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?

The description clearly states 'Retrieves the status and progress of a specific Ambari request operation', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_active_requests' and 'get_request_tasks' by focusing on a single request by ID.

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?

The 'Required Usage Scenarios' section lists clear conditions for use, such as when users ask for status or during monitoring. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'get_request_tasks' that might be more appropriate for detailed task-level information.

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