get_operation_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does communicate that the tool is non-destructive and designed for polling until completion, which is useful. However, it does not explain whether calls block, how status is reported, what happens on failure, or how 'definitively complete' is determined.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to clarifying the tool's purpose and the key scenario ('timed-out operation'), making it highly efficient.

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 one-parameter polling tool with an output schema, the description is close to sufficient, and return-value details are already covered by the output schema. However, it omits crucial lifecycle context: how the agent obtains an operation_id, whether polling is one-shot or repeated, and what to do if the operation never completes.

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 schema lists only operation_id with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The tool description does not explain where operation_id comes from or how it relates to the timed-out operation. This leaves the agent to infer the parameter's meaning solely from its name.

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, resource, and outcome: poll a timed-out FreeCAD operation until it is definitively complete. This clearly distinguishes it from all sibling tools, none of which are operation-status related, and leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 correct usage context: after a FreeCAD operation has timed out, call this tool to poll for completion. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the clear scenario of 'timed-out operation' and the lack of similar sibling tools make the intended context reasonably obvious.

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