gcp_get_api_operation

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'long-running' to indicate non-immediate completion, but lacks details on response format, side effects (none expected), error handling, or what 'status' entails (e.g., done, error, in progress).

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 concise sentence, front-loading the purpose. No extraneous words, but could be structured with additional details like expected output. It earns its place but leaves room for improvement.

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 simple status check tool with no output schema, the description is partially complete. It explains what the tool does and references sibling operations, but fails to describe what the status response looks like, which is critical for an agent to interpret results.

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 coverage is 100% and the parameter 'operationName' is already described in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond tying the operation to API enable/disable. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: checking the status of a long-running API enable/disable operation. It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('status of... operation'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like gcp_get_operation (general operation status) and gcp_enable_apis/gcp_disable_api (which initiate operations).

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 gcp_enable_apis or gcp_disable_api via the parameter description, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like gcp_get_operation. No when-not or context-specific guidance is provided.

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