ops_request_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and 'Get' only weakly implies a read-only operation. It does not disclose permission requirements, whether status is cached/live, rate limits, or what happens for an unknown or expired request_id.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. However, the brevity edges into under-specification rather than tight expression, since nothing substantive follows the verb-resource statement.

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-value explanation is not required, and the input surface is a single id. Still, the definition is thin for a status-polling tool sitting among several approval-related siblings that it does not disambiguate from.

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% and the single required parameter (request_id) is documented in neither schema nor description. The phrase 'for a request' hints at the identifier but gives no format, origin, or validity constraints, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and a clear compound resource (approval and execution status for a request). This meaningfully distinguishes it from siblings like ops_pending_approvals (a list) and ops_execute_approved (a mutation), though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 guidance on when to call this versus the sibling status/approval tools, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., having a request_id from a prior submission), and no stated exclusions. Usage can only be inferred from the name.

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