conduyt_get_batch_operation

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does useful work by enumerating the item statuses and giving concrete skip reasons, but it never states that this is a read-only operation, nor how paging interacts with the full item set, nor what happens for an in-flight vs. finished run.

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?

A single dense sentence with no filler; the resource and the return shape are front-loaded. The phrasing 'One Run Batch run' is slightly awkward but does not cost comprehension.

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 a fully covered schema and no output schema, the description correctly spends its budget explaining return content, which is the right choice. It still leaves gaps an agent needs: whether this is read-only, and how it relates to the batch-operation list and cancel siblings.

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% and all four parameters (id, page, limit, itemStatus) are documented in the schema, including defaults and the max of 50. The description restates the status enum as the result vocabulary but adds no filtering or pagination semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 identifies the resource (a single Batch run) and its scope (per-contact items), which implicitly separates it from conduyt_list_batch_operations, but it never states the action verb. It reads as a description of the response payload ('status per contact ... with the reason') rather than a statement of what the tool does, so an agent must infer 'retrieve'.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no explicit mention of the obvious alternatives (conduyt_list_batch_operations, conduyt_cancel_batch_operation) despite them being siblings. The 'One Run' phrasing hints at single-run retrieval but leaves the routing decision to inference.

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