sonar_async_get

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the async nature and the possible outcome (status or result), but doesn't elaborate on polling behavior, response structure, or error handling. The GET method is mentioned, suggesting read-only, but not explicitly stated.

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, compact sentence that leads with the action and includes the endpoint. No verbosity.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and outcome. It could benefit from mentioning what the response looks like more concretely, but the 'status or result' phrasing gives an adequate overview.

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?

The schema has full coverage for the single parameter, with a clear description referencing sonar_async_submit. The description text only restates the request_id in the URL, adding no additional semantic information.

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 action (Get) and the resource (status or result of an async Sonar job), and includes the URL pattern. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying a single job via request_id, as opposed to sonar_async_list or sonar_async_submit.

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 implies usage after submitting an async job and wanting to check its status or retrieve the result. It clearly identifies the target as a specific job, but doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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