get_generation_status

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool is for asynchronous job polling (non-mutating). However, it does not specify the status lifecycle or that it can be called multiple times, which would be helpful. Score 3 as it is minimally adequate but lacks detail.

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 two sentence, achieves its purpose efficiently without filler words. Each sentence adds value: purpose and usage context.

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 the simple parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains when to use and what to expect (status poll). A small gap is not mentioning that calling before generation starts might fail, but overall sufficient.

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% with one parameter ('generation_id') described as 'Generation job identifier returned by generate_presentation.' The description adds no further meaning beyond the parameter description, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 checks the status of an asynchronous presentation generation job, using specific verb 'check' and resource 'status of a generation job'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'generate_presentation' by indicating this is a follow-up for status polling.

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 provides explicit context for when to use this tool: after 'generate_presentation' until completion or failure. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the context is clear for this polling use case.

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