Check Operation Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety and idempotency profile. The description adds that it is an asynchronous operation tracker, which is consistent with annotations but does not disclose additional traits such as rate limits, polling cadence, or response format. Given annotations handle core transparency, the description's incremental contribution is moderate.

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 two sentences, front-loading the primary action ('Check the status') and then adding context about when operation IDs are generated. Every sentence earns its place—no redundancy or filler. It is compact and immediately clear.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no nested objects, the description is sufficient. It explains the purpose, when to use it, and the parameter is well-documented in the schema. It does not mention polling behavior or response specifics, but these are not required given the tool's simplicity and the annotations covering side effects.

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 input schema describes operation_id already ('The operation ID to check status for'), so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description goes a bit further by explaining that operation_id comes from asynchronous actions, adding context that the schema alone does not convey. However, beyond this, it does not add syntactic or format details, so it aligns with the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose: 'Check the status of an asynchronous Kinsta operation by its operation ID.' It uses a specific verb (check) and a resource (operation status), and it differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on polling progress rather than performing actions. It also provides context that many actions return an operation_id to be tracked here, making its role unmistakable.

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 gives clear usage context: it is for tracking asynchronous operations that return an operation_id. It implies when to use it (after triggering an action) and that it is the polling endpoint for progress. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the guidance is sufficient for typical scenarios.

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