get_upload_by_id

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only operation' and required scope 'activity:write', which are important behavioral traits. It also includes the HTTP method and path. It could add what the response contains or error behavior, but for a simple get this is sufficient.

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 lean and to the point. It leads with 'Get Upload', then provides the endpoint, purpose, scope, and read-only note in a compact format. Every line adds value with no redundancy.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description provides essential context: endpoint, read-only nature, and required scope. It does not cover error cases or return format, but these are not explicitly needed given the simplicity. Overall it is adequate.

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 already describes uploadId as 'The identifier of the upload', providing 100% coverage. The description does not add additional semantic detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Returns an upload for a given identifier.' This is specific to uploads and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_activity_by_id or get_gear_by_id. The endpoint and ID are explicit, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 indicates the tool is for retrieving an upload by ID, which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives like post_create_upload. Despite that, the context is unambiguous for a simple get operation.

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