Get Request

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds the async-operation context, which is useful, but it doesn't disclose behaviors like response format, error handling for unknown request IDs, or whether it polls or returns immediately. This goes slightly beyond annotations but not by much.

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 brief and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a clear usage note. The 'Args:' section is redundant with the schema, but it doesn't bloat the description. Overall, it is concise and easy to scan.

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?

With no output schema, the description should clarify what 'status and result' means in terms of return value. It doesn't describe the structure or possible states (e.g., pending, completed, error), which is a gap for an async polling tool. However, the tool is simple and the annotations cover safety, so the description is minimally adequate but not complete.

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 100%, with the parameter already described as 'Request ID (starts with 'req', 24 characters)'. The description repeats this requirement ('starts with 'req'') without adding new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('status and result of an XBrush API request'), making the tool's function clear. It also distinguishes it from sibling tools by noting it checks async operations like image edit and video generate, which differentiates it from list_requests or generation tools.

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 explicitly states to use this tool to check the result of async operations, providing clear context. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like list_requests, but the use case is well-defined and implies when this tool is appropriate.

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