Read a relay operation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'durable' qualifier and the request-scope, but does not disclose behavior like not-found handling or the exact response shape. It contributes some context beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The verb and object appear first, the scoping qualifiers follow, and every phrase earns its place.

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 one-parameter read tool with readOnly and idempotent annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it names the resource and the exact request types it covers. It stops short of describing response contents, but 'Read the ... operation record' sufficiently implies the return value for this simple read operation.

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 must compensate for the undocumented operationId parameter. It partially does by indicating that the ID refers to a durable operation record for start/reply/steer/cancel requests. However, it does not explain where the operationId comes from or otherwise enrich the parameter meaning much beyond the schema's name and uuid format.

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 ('Read') and a specific resource ('durable idempotent operation record'), and narrows the scope by enumerating the request types: start, reply, steer, or cancel. This makes the tool easy to distinguish from run-focused siblings like get_run or status_run.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need the operation record for a start, reply, steer, or cancel request. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the request-type enumeration is strong contextual guidance.

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