Get a slide's analysis

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real value on top: the four lifecycle states, that tile-level metrics and densest-tile images are included, and that nucleus output is QuPath GeoJSON. It stops short of the one behavior an agent most needs — whether a call with status 'queued' or 'running' returns immediately or blocks until completion.

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?

It is a single sentence, front-loaded with the resource ('A whole slide's analysis') and then the contents. The parenthetical tile-field list is dense but each item is informative; only the trailing GeoJSON detail could be trimmed given an output schema exists.

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 read tool with full annotations, full schema coverage and an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers the state machine and the payload shape. The remaining gap is polling/blocking semantics for queued and running states, which the output schema cannot convey.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already explains that image_id is the UUID returned by upload_slide or upload_slide_from_url. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is acceptable given the schema does the work, so the baseline of 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 makes clear this retrieves the analysis record for a whole slide and enumerates exactly what that record contains (status, tile metrics, densest-tile images, nucleus GeoJSON). It is specific about the resource and payload, but it never names the sibling it is distinct from — notably analyze_slide, which presumably triggers the work this tool reads.

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?

Usage is only implied: the enumeration of statuses (queued, running with current step, done, failed) hints that this is the tool to poll after kicking off an analysis, but the description never says so explicitly and names no alternative. There is no statement of when not to use it or what to call instead to start an analysis.

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