agents_get_invocation_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description is a single terse sentence that doesn't explain polling behavior, whether it's idempotent/read-only, what the status values might be, whether it can be called repeatedly, or any rate-limit considerations. For a status-checking tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action. It could add more behavioral detail without becoming verbose, but as it stands it is appropriately concise.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation isn't needed. However, with no annotations and a status-checking tool where the state model is critical (what statuses exist, is it polling-safe, how long invocations take), the description alone is minimally adequate. It would benefit from describing the lifecycle or status values to be truly complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the only parameter (invocation_id) clearly documented as the ID returned by agents_invoke_agent. The description itself adds no parameter detail, but the schema fully covers the parameter, and the cross-reference to agents_invoke_agent adds useful contextual meaning. Baseline 3 with the cross-reference justifies a 4.

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 'Check the status of an agent or workflow invocation' with a clear verb (check) and resource (invocation status). It distinguishes from siblings like agents_get_invocation_result (which gets results) and agents_invoke_agent (which starts an invocation). It's clear but not very specific about what 'status' encompasses.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions are provided. However, the schema parameter 'invocation_id' referencing agents_invoke_agent implies a workflow of invoke-then-check-status, which provides some implicit context. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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