get_extraction

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description does not contradict them. It adds value by disclosing that progress and outcome are durable and can be recovered after a disconnect, which goes beyond the annotation fields. It does not discuss polling or rate limits, but the core behavioral claim is present.

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 nine-word sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, and every word contributes to the meaning.

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?

Given a single required parameter, an output schema, and annotations covering safety/idempotency, the description is mostly sufficient for a basic read operation. However, it leaves open how operation_id is obtained and does not distinguish the tool from related extraction or capture status tools, so some context is missing.

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 input schema has zero description coverage for operation_id, and the description never mentions the parameter or explains where it comes from. The name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the tool description adds no explicit semantic meaning beyond the schema field name.

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 ('Read') and names a concrete resource: 'durable extraction progress, outcome, and recovery after disconnect.' This is clearly tied to the get_extraction name and avoids vagueness, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling getters like get_detached_capture.

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 phrase 'after disconnect' gives clear context for when the tool is useful, but the description does not say when not to use it or point to alternatives such as get_detached_capture or cancel_extraction. Usage routing is left largely to inference.

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