pocketdraft_operation_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds two meaningful behavioral facts beyond those: receipts are bounded to 100 operations / ten minutes while the process runs, and there is no automatic retry. That is useful availability and retry-policy context.

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 clauses, front-loaded with the core action and timing context. Nothing repeats the title or annotations, and every sentence adds operational meaning.

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 annotations already cover the safety profile. The description covers purpose, timing, retention bounds, and retry policy; the one remaining gap is the optional operationId semantics.

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% for the single operationId parameter. The description never names operationId, explains whether it is optional, or states what happens when it is omitted. It fails to compensate for the undocumented 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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('browser operation receipt'), scoped to the after-timeout/cancellation context. It distinguishes itself from siblings like pocketdraft_history by focusing on operation receipts, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 gives the usage context: after a timeout or cancellation. The 'No automatic retry' line adds a behavioral constraint on when not to retry, but no alternative tool is named, so it falls short of a full when/when-not/alternatives statement.

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