sophos_get_clawback_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning whether the operation is read-only, what happens if the clawback does not exist, or any side effects. This is minimal disclosure.

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 that is front-loaded and clear. It is concise but somewhat minimal. It efficiently conveys the purpose without unnecessary words, but could benefit from slightly more detail.

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, the description is adequate. It does not include an output schema, but the return value (status) is implicit. The context of being the follow-up to sophos_clawback_email is not explicitly stated, which could help completeness.

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 both parameters (tenant_id, message_id) documented. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it just restates the operation. Baseline for high coverage is 3.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'status of an email clawback operation'. It unambiguously identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like sophos_clawback_email (which initiates the operation).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool or provide alternatives. Usage is implied: after initiating a clawback with sophos_clawback_email, use this to check status. However, there is no clear context or exclusion criteria, so it relies on the user's inference.

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