check_extraction_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the internal waiting behavior, return content, and supports chunked fetching. Lacks details about error handling or idempotency, but the core behavior is well described.

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 well-structured with purpose, usage note, return info, and parameter explanations. It is slightly repetitive (mentions extract_segments twice) but remains tight and front-loaded.

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 status-check tool in a pipeline, the description covers the essential context: trigger (previous tool), behavior (server waits), return value (segments + instructions), and pagination. Sibling tool names reinforce the pipeline context.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining session_dir as the path returned from extract_segments and offset as the start index for pagination. This exceeds the schema's bare definitions.

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 'Check segment extraction progress' and explains that it returns segments and translation instructions when complete. It explicitly references the preceding tool extract_segments, distinguishing it from other pipeline steps like check_assembly_status.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: call after extract_segments to confirm completion. Also notes that no separate wait is needed because the server waits internally, and mentions the offset parameter for pagination when segments are numerous.

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