get_library_metadata_augmentations_by_augmentation_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which the description does not contradict. The description adds the fact it uses a GET endpoint and describes the wait parameter as 'Wait for augmentation completion before returning,' which discloses the blocking behavior requested by the caller.

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 very short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The endpoint, args, and parameter explanations are clearly laid out in a terse, scannable format with no wasted words.

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 the tool has an output schema, the return structure is covered. The description explains both arguments and the general GET behavior. It does not define what 'augmentation' refers to or list error cases, but these are not needed for a straightforward read operation with given output schema and safe annotations.

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 0%, so the description provides the only meaning for both parameters. 'augmentation_id' is explained as 'The id of the augmentation,' and 'wait' is explained as 'Wait for augmentation completion before returning,' giving useful functional context that the raw schema properties (types and titles) do not add.

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 'augmentation status', and the endpoint reinforces the specific target. It is distinguishable from siblings because no other tool refers to augmentations, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the nearby get_library_metadata_by_id_* tools beyond the name.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions. The description only states what the tool does, not the situations in which it should be selected.

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