get_nks_generation_status

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/destructive, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context: which products (Serum 2, Omnisphere) return extended fields, that queueable factory count includes already-queued presets, and that the call never contacts Live despite openWorldHint. This meaningfully extends beyond the annotations.

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?

Two sentences, purpose front-loaded, followed by scoping detail. The long enumeration of reported fields is dense but earns its place given the absence of an output schema. Minor verbosity in the field list.

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 readOnly annotations and no output schema, the description carries responsibility for describing return shape, which it does by enumerating counts, pilot size, gate state, and pilot IDs. A read-only status tool is adequately covered; only the missing routing to sibling job tools is a modest gap.

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 single parameter is documented ('Exact product slug.'), so baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about the slug's format or valid values beyond the schema, so no uplift.

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 ('Read') and resource ('discovered preset and durable job counts for one product'), and enumerates the extra fields some products report. It distinguishes itself from the mutating siblings by noting it does not create a queue, though it never names an alternative tool. Clear but no explicit sibling differentiation by name.

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 closing line ('Does not create a queue or contact Live') implicitly frames this as the safe inspection step before enqueueing, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement or named alternative (e.g., get_nks_generation_job). Usage must be inferred.

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