bw_get_remodeling_request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and it does so richly: it marks the operation read-only, explains the buffered 'Running' behavior, says the status is cross-checked against runtime tables and the batch job, notes that a corrected status names its source, and warns when the header lags. This goes well beyond a simple getter description and prepares the agent for a commonly confusing behavior.

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 concise for the behavioral complexity it has to convey, and the key facts are front-loaded: what is returned and read-only first. Each subsequent sentence adds new information about diagnosis, the buffered status pitfall, and polling, rather than repeating the schema. It is longer than a two-line description, but the length is justified by the non-obvious status behavior.

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 fairly complex diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: returned fields, the log as diagnostic carrier, the meaning of the status edge cases, and the polling recommendation. The five-step list, corrected-source behavior, and lag-warning behavior provide context an agent would otherwise not infer from the schema.

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%, so the baseline is 3: the schema already documents every parameter including the enum, defaults, case-insensitivity, and the auto-resolution of the request number. The description does not add much parameter-level semantics, though it does mention bw_list_remodeling_requests as the source for two of the identifiers, which is mildly useful.

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 names a specific verb ('get') and resource ('one remodeling request') and states exactly what is returned: header, per-step statuses for the five processing steps, and log messages. It distinguishes itself from the sibling bw_list_remodeling_requests by being the single-request status/diagnosis tool, so an agent can pick it apart from the list tool without opening the schema.

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 says this is 'the tool to diagnose a failed remodeling' and explicitly instructs to 'poll this tool to wait for a run to finish', which gives concrete when-to-use guidance. It does not name the alternative tools or explicitly say when not to use it, but the context makes the intended use clear enough.

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