Get Operation Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: real-time WebSocket verification, concurrent polling of bulk operations under one shared timeout window, and per-item failures surfacing in detailed_results rather than aborting the batch. These are exactly the non-obvious behaviors an agent needs to know.

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?

Compact and efficiently front-loaded: purpose in sentence one, usage modes in the next, timeout semantics, then routing guidance. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure mirrors how an agent would reason about the tool.

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?

Covers both invocation modes, shared timeout behavior, bulk failure semantics, and the relationship to sibling tools. An output schema exists so return-value details needn't be spelled out, and nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 50% — operation_id is fully documented in the schema, but timeout_seconds has no schema description. The description compensates by explaining the timeout wait window bounds both modes and that bulk checks share one window, adding real meaning beyond the schema's default/minimum values.

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?

Opens with a specific verb-resource statement — 'Get the status of one or more device operations' — and adds the distinguishing real-time WebSocket verification detail. It differentiates from siblings by explicitly pointing to ha_get_state for entity states, so an agent can select it correctly without inspecting other definitions.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this to track operations initiated by ha_bulk_control or ha_call_service,' and an explicit exclusion: 'For current entity states, use ha_get_state instead.' This is model usage guidance with named alternatives and conditions.

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