查询操作结果

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context about the post-timeout/idempotency use case, which goes beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose what the response contains, what states an operation can be in, or what errors might occur.

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 sentence that front-loads the trigger condition and purpose with no filler. It is concise and efficient for the apparent simplicity of 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?

With no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description needs to explain what the query returns and how the parameters relate. It only gives the after-timeout use case, leaving an agent unable to determine how to interpret the result or where operationId comes from.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions operationId by name without explaining its origin or meaning, and it says nothing about projectId or instanceId, leaving required parameters under-specified.

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?

Title '查询操作结果' and description clearly identify a read-only query of an operation by operationId, with the specific purpose of checking after timeout or disconnection. It is distinct enough from sibling tools, though it does not explicitly describe the shape of the returned result.

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 explicitly states the triggering condition ('超时或断线后') and the intended benefit (avoid duplicate execution of modifications). It does not name alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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