wafle_products_sync_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the tool is known to be a safe read. The description adds the list of possible statuses and pairing context, but does not disclose behavior for unknown/expired job IDs or error handling. This goes slightly beyond annotations but lacks richer 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 containing the action, resource, status values, and pairing instruction. Every word earns its place with zero waste.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description reasonably covers the return value by listing statuses. It does not address edge cases like job not found or expiration, but for a straightforward status-check tool with strong annotations, this is sufficient.

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%, and the parameter `job_id` is clearly described as the value returned by `wafle_products_sync_trigger`. The description adds no additional parameter syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('status of a product-sync job') with the possible statuses enumerated. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling trigger tool by explicitly mentioning pairing with `wafle_products_sync_trigger`, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit usage context by instructing to pair with `wafle_products_sync_trigger`, implying this tool is used after triggering a sync job. It doesn't discuss exclusions or alternatives (like `wafle_products_sync_trigger_and_wait`), but the clear pairing guidance is sufficient for correct usage.

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