request_status

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description earns credit for explaining what destruction actually means here: abandoning does not cancel upstream work or prevent billing. The clarification that recover returns a recorded response 'without generating a new one' also prevents a costly misread of the tool's effect.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The three modes are enumerated up front and the billing caveat is placed immediately after the abandon clause where it matters most.

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 shapes need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. What remains thin is failure behavior, e.g. what inspect returns for an unresolved request or what recover does when no response was recorded. Otherwise the description is sufficient to invoke the tool correctly.

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 carry the load. It does define the semantics of each action value well, but never mentions request_id directly, its UUID format, where such an id comes from, or that action defaults to inspect. That leaves the required parameter's meaning to be inferred from 'a known local request'.

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 names three concrete operations on a specific resource (a known local request): inspect, recover a recorded response, and abandon. This maps cleanly onto the action enum, so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It stops short of differentiating itself from the chat and sessions siblings by name.

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?

Each mode carries its own trigger condition: 'inspect a known local request', 'recover its recorded OpenAI response without generating a new one', 'explicitly abandon an unresolved request'. That is clear when-to-use guidance for all three paths. It does not say when to prefer this over the chat or sessions siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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