panorama_get_operation_status

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=true annotation, the description discloses the precise safety boundary: it returns only a safe target label/hash and never returns snapshot XPath values, restore XML, or secret metadata. This is meaningful behavioral context that helps the agent trust and safely use the tool.

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 two tight sentences with the READ-ONLY marker front-loaded and the safety guarantee stated immediately. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 simple read-olny status lookup with full schema coverage and readOnly/destructive annotations, the description provides enough information to invoke the tool correctly. The output schema is absent, but the safe-output boundary in the description sufficiently covers what the agent can expect.

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 100%, covering operation_id and firewall semantics clearly. The description adds no additional parameter details, but since the schema already documents both parameters, the baseline score of 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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns lifecycle metadata for one active Panorama candidate operation. It also differentiates itself from destructive or heavier operations by explicitly saying it returns only safe metadata and never snapshot XPath, restore XML, or secrets.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like panorama_verify_candidate_operation or panorama_list_active_operations. The only implied context is that an operation_id exists from an apply call and the operation is active, but alternatives and exclusions are not addressed.

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