Get Operation Status

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds behavioral details beyond that: real-time WebSocket verification, single vs. bulk behavior, and timeout parameter scoping. No contradictions with annotations.

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 well-structured with a clear lead sentence, followed by parameter details and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown but mentioned), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers input variations, timeout specifics, and when to use the tool, making it complete for the agent.

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 50%, but the description compensates by explaining how operation_id can be a single string or list, and clarifies that timeout_seconds only applies to single operations. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema.

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 verb 'check' and resource 'device operations', and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ha_get_state by specifying the intended use case. The mention of bulk capability further clarifies the tool's scope.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool (tracking operations from ha_bulk_control or ha_call_service) and provides an alternative (ha_get_state for entity states). This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's context.

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