get_ingestion_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It notes the tool returns failed/skipped notes but does not disclose what happens if no such notes exist, whether it returns all notes irrespective of other filters, or any side effects. Minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 sentences, concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. No wasted words, though the use of Spanish might limit some readers. It is appropriately sized.

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?

Given that there is an output schema, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, it lacks detail on the status parameter and potential edge cases. It is minimally complete but could be improved.

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 description mentions 'optionally filters by status' but does not explain what values 'status' can take or its format. Schema coverage is 0%, so description should compensate but fails to provide meaningful semantic detail beyond existence of the parameter.

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 tool reports notes that have failed or been skipped (SKIPPED), and optionally filters by status. This verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling 'list_notes' which presumably lists all notes. However, it could be more explicit by contrasting with 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?

The description only says 'optionally filters by status' but provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like 'list_notes' or 'search_wiki'. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is given.

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