Get Operation Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description earns credit for disclosing non-obvious behavior: bulk checks poll concurrently under one shared timeout window and report per-item failures inside detailed_results rather than aborting the batch. It stops short of describing timeout-expiry outcomes, but that is largely covered by the schema's timeout_seconds text and the output schema.

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?

Three short paragraphs, front-loaded with the core action, then batch semantics, then the disambiguation pointer. Every sentence carries information and none restates the title or annotations.

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 values need not be explained, and the annotations carry the safety profile. For a two-parameter read tool, the description covers purpose, batch behavior, and the alternative tool, leaving nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3, and both parameters are self-documenting in the schema. The description adds genuine meaning beyond the per-parameter text by explaining that timeout_seconds is a single shared window across all IDs in a bulk check and that failures surface per item rather than failing the call.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the status of one or more device operations') and adds the distinguishing mechanism ('real-time WebSocket verification'). It explicitly names the sibling it is not ('For current entity states, use ha_get_state instead'), so an agent can route correctly without opening either 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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use tied to a producer ('track the operation_ids that ha_bulk_control returns') and an explicit alternative for the adjacent-but-different case ('For current entity states, use ha_get_state instead'). It also flags the batch mode as the intended path for multi-ID checks.

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