Get Operation Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the response contains 'current state, preview data, and result', which goes beyond a simple 'status' and helps the agent know what information to expect.

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 a single sentence of 15 words that front-loads the core purpose ('Get detailed status of a specific operation') and then lists the included content types. No filler or repetition; every word 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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining what the tool returns. It does so by mentioning 'current state, preview data, and result', which is sufficient for a status lookup tool. Given the simple parameter set and strong annotations, the description is nearly complete, though it could have briefly pointed to operation_list for discovering operation IDs.

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%: both operation_id and response_format have descriptive text in the schema. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource: 'detailed status of a specific operation'. It distinguishes from siblings like operation_list (which lists operations) and operation_cancel (which cancels) by focusing on a single operation's status, including its current state, preview data, and result.

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: you need a specific operation ID, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like operation_list or operation_cancel. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, so usage is only implied, not clearly guided.

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