vmix_operation_get

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

Annotations already indicate a safe read-only operation, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the same request_id is never executed twice and this guarantee persists across restarts. This goes beyond the schema and annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by an important behavioral guarantee. There is no redundant or filler content; every sentence earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter read-only lookup, the description covers the core purpose, persistence, and idempotency guarantee. It does not describe the response format or error behavior, but given the annotations and minimal schema, the remaining gaps are minor.

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 mentions request_id in a meaningful way, indicating that it identifies an operation and carries idempotency semantics. However, with schema coverage at 0%, it does not fully compensate by explaining the source of the request_id, its exact purpose, or how it maps to an operation beyond the name and pattern.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get persisted operation status.' It clearly identifies what the tool retrieves and distinguishes it from sibling mutation or configuration tools. The term 'persisted' adds a meaningful scope that separates it from a transient/live status check.

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 description implies the tool should be used when retrieving the status of a previously submitted operation, which is clear from 'Get persisted operation status.' However, it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it, nor does it name alternatives or explain how it relates to sibling tools that may produce or consume request IDs.

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