Operations in progress

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the tool runs 'pac admin status' and uses the active pac auth profile, which is useful, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the returned status format looks like, or any auth/precondition requirements.

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 short sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the underlying command is identified concisely in the second sentence.

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 status-query tool with all-optional parameters, the description provides the essential purpose and underlying command. However, without an output schema or annotations, it does not describe the return value or clarify how this tool relates to polling/status siblings, leaving moderate ambiguity.

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 already describes all four parameters, with 100% coverage, so the description is not required to explain them in depth. The description's mention of the active pac auth profile adds minimal information beyond the schema's existing 'profile' parameter description.

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 states a clear resource ('tenant operations that are still running') and specifies the kind of information provided ('status'), with concrete examples such as copies, restores, resets, and deletions. It distinguishes itself reasonably from generic status tools through the tenant-operation scope, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like cs_job_status or cs_status.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over cs_job_status, cs_status, or other admin inspection tools. The description implicitly suggests it is for checking in-progress tenant operations, but it does not state exclusions or alternatives.

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