cutbolt_session_receipt

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the REQUEST_NOT_FOUND outcome when a request never took effect, which is a non-obvious result that changes retry behavior. It doesn't disclose output shape, but that's minor for a lookup.

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?

Three tight sentences, perfectly front-loaded: purpose, return/error semantics, then usage trigger. No filler.

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?

Near-complete for a read-only lookup with rich annotations, a fully described schema, and no output schema. The only gap is not describing the shape of the returned 'receipt', though that's acknowledged as optional when output schema is absent.

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 coverage is 100% (all three parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description clarifies that request_id refers to a committed change and implies project_id scope, but adds no syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (look up) and resource (request ID commit status), and explicitly distinguishes scope: 'without resending its arguments'. This clearly differentiates it from cutbolt_session_get (fetch state), cutbolt_session_apply (make a change), and cutbolt_job_status (a different lookup domain).

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?

Explicitly prescribes when to use it: 'after a lost response or restart before deciding to retry.' This is the exact condition that selects this tool over blindly retrying via cutbolt_session_apply, and the exclusions are clear.

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