Drop upload status

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true) already indicate a safe read operation, and the description adds the context of 'reserved/in-progress upload.' However, it does not disclose what status values may be returned or how errors are handled, leaving some behavioral ambiguity beyond the annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that directly conveys the action and target. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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?

The tool is simple (one read-only parameter, no output schema), but the description omits details about the response format or possible statuses. While adequate for basic selection, it falls short of being fully complete for an agent that needs to interpret the result without additional schema.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the burden for explaining upload_id. It implies upload_id identifies the reserved/in-progress upload but does not explicitly state its origin (e.g., from drop_upload_reserve) or format, offering only marginal value over the raw schema.

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's purpose: 'GET status for a reserved/in-progress upload.' It uses a specific verb (GET) and resource (status of an upload), and distinguishes itself from siblings like drop_upload_reserve and drop_upload_content by focusing on status checking rather than creation or content transfer.

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 implies the tool is used for checking the status of a reserved/in-progress upload, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. It provides context but no exclusions or direct references to sibling tools, such as using drop_files_list for completed uploads.

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