operation_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key non-obvious behavior: this is a long-poll of up to 55 seconds that returns early on completion or when the task enters awaiting_user. The default-when-omitted behavior for operation_id is also stated. What is missing is error behavior for an invalid/expired operation_id and whether calls are concurrency-safe.

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 short lines, front-loaded with the purpose, then the timing constraint, then the parameter fallback. Every sentence conveys information an agent needs and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not needed, and for a two-parameter read tool the description covers purpose, timing, and default targeting well. It falls short only on task-state vocabulary beyond awaiting_user and on failure modes, which matter for a polling tool with no annotations.

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 and largely does: it explains the 55-second ceiling on wait_seconds and the omit-to-get-active-task semantics of operation_id. It does not mention that wait_seconds defaults to 0 (i.e., non-blocking) or that operation_id is a string identifier, leaving some ambiguity about default polling behavior.

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?

"查询任务进度与结果" gives a specific verb (query) plus the resource and the two things it returns (progress, results). It is clearly distinguishable from operation_control (control) and session_status (session-scoped) by name, but the description never explicitly disambiguates itself from those siblings.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: the agent learns it should call this to poll progress, and that omitting operation_id targets the current active task, which is a useful selection rule. However, it never says when to use operation_control or session_status instead, nor what happens if the operation has already finished or never existed.

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