get_operation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds two valuable behavioral details: it never submits or resubmits (consistent with readOnly) and warns that unknown completion may still incur charges. This charge caveat is beyond what annotations provide and is important for cost awareness.

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 sentences with zero filler. The purpose is front-loaded, the exclusion is stated immediately, and the cost warning is a final compact addition. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, when to use it, what it doesn't do, and a financial caveat. Annotations handle the safety profile. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call this 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?

The description does not mention the parameter operation_id at all. However, the schema already provides format: uuid, making the parameter self-explanatory. With a single parameter and clear schema, the description adds no extra meaning but also doesn't need to. Baseline for low schema coverage is 3, and here it's adequate because the parameter is trivial.

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 verb 'Look up' and the resource 'retained operation UUID' and 'committed artifact', and explicitly distinguishes it from submission tools by saying it never submits or resubmits an image request. This makes it easy for an agent to understand this is a retrieval/status tool, distinct from generate_image and edit_image.

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 interruption for recovering artifacts, which provides clear context. It explicitly states it never submits or resubmits, ruling out using this tool for creation. However, it doesn't name the sibling tools directly or explicitly say 'use this instead of generate_image when you need the result of a prior call', so the guidance is strong but not fully explicit.

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