ncloud_get_operation_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns with a read-only 'Check' operation. The description adds context about being for recently created/modified resources, but it does not disclose what kinds of statuses are returned (e.g., in-progress, success, failure) or whether it should be polled. Since annotations cover the safety profile, the description meets the minimum bar without adding extra behavioral detail.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the essential purpose without any filler. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient and easily parsed.

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 only 2 parameters, a read-only annotation, and no output schema, the description conveys enough to understand the tool's basic function. However, it lacks any indication of what the response contains (e.g., status enum, progress indicator), which would be helpful since there is no output schema. The description is adequate but not fully complete for an agent that might need to interpret the result.

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?

The input schema provides clear descriptions for both parameters (resourceId and resourceType), with 100% schema coverage. The description adds general context about the resource being recently created/modified but does not provide additional param-specific meaning beyond what the schema already documents. This aligns with the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Check'), the resource scope ('current status of a recently created or modified resource'), and the required identifiers ('by type and ID'). It distinguishes itself from sibling get_*_detail tools by focusing on the operation status of recent changes rather than the resource's full configuration.

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 phrase 'recently created or modified' implies the tool should be used after create/update operations to monitor progress, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusion conditions. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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