scheduling_get_optimization_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It conveys a read-only operation ('get') and lists the possible status values, but does not disclose error behavior (e.g., invalid task ID), required permissions, or whether the status is returned as a string or structured object. This is adequate but leaves some ambiguity.

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 conveys the tool's purpose and parameter without redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding, achieving maximum conciseness.

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 no output schema, the description does not need to list return fields, but it does mention the possible status values, which is the core return information. It is a simple status lookup, so the description is reasonably complete despite missing explicit error conditions or additional response details.

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 has no description coverage (0%). The description clarifies that the lone parameter 'task_id' is the identifier of the optimization task, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. It does not provide format examples or additional constraints, but the single parameter's role is clearly explained.

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 verb 'get' and the specific resource 'status of a specific optimization task' identified by task ID. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like scheduling_get_route_details or scheduling_get_kpi by focusing exclusively on optimization task status, with enumerated states (running, completed, failed).

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 clear context: use this tool to retrieve the status of a specific optimization task by its ID. It implies the appropriate use case but lacks explicit exclusions or mentions of alternative sibling tools, though the use case is sufficiently distinct from siblings.

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