transfer_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the purpose and gives a usage hint, but does not disclose what happens if the task is not found, whether the operation is read-only, or what the response contains. This is a significant gap for a status-checking 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 one short sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and usage context. There is no redundant information or filler.

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 the tool's simplicity—one optional parameter and no output schema—the description provides the essential purpose and a key usage constraint. However, it does not explain the return value or any error handling, which could be important for an agent to interpret the response correctly.

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 fully documents the single parameter 'task_id' with 100% coverage, including the example 'tf_1' and the special behavior of leaving it empty. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so 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 'Check background transfer task progress' clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling transfer tools by focusing on status checking rather than performing transfers.

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 phrase 'use with async_transfer=true' provides clear context for when to use this tool—specifically for asynchronous transfers. It doesn't explicitly exclude synchronous transfers or mention alternative tools, but the context is sufficient for correct selection.

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