Get generation status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns status, error info, and result indexes, and that it should be polled until a terminal state. However, it does not describe potential side effects (likely none), error response structure, or what happens with an invalid publicId. This is adequate but not deeply transparent.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the action and includes a concise polling directive. No wasted words; every clause adds value.

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 no output schema, the description explains the main return elements ('status, error info, and result indexes') and the polling lifecycle. It does not enumerate possible statuses, but the phrase 'until status is COMPLETED or FAILED' implies multiple statuses. This is reasonably complete for a simple one-parameter polling tool, though it could mention how result indexes are used with sibling tools.

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% (publicId is described as 'The publicId returned by deepy_create_generation'). The description reinforces this by saying 'by publicId' and 'result indexes by publicId,' but adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already fully documents the parameter.

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 the tool fetches a generation's current status, error info, and result indexes by publicId. It uses a specific verb ('Fetch') with a specific resource, and it distinguishes itself from siblings like deepy_get_result (which likely retrieves actual results) and deepy_create_generation.

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 explicitly instructs to 'Poll this after create until status is COMPLETED or FAILED,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the polling pattern and sibling tools (e.g., deepy_get_result) imply when not to use this tool.

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