doc2x_parse_pdf_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the return structure ({status, progress, detail}), status values (processing/failed/success), progress range (0..100), and when detail is populated (only when status=failed). It also mentions the dependency on doc2x_parse_pdf_submit for obtaining the uid. However, it doesn't cover potential errors, rate limits, or authentication needs.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first explains the tool's purpose and return values, the second provides critical usage guidance. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 moderate complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete. It explains the return structure and tool relationships well. However, it could benefit from mentioning error handling or timeouts, which would make it fully comprehensive for a status-checking operation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the uid parameter. The description adds meaningful context by explaining that the uid comes from doc2x_parse_pdf_submit, which helps the agent understand the parameter's origin and relationship to other tools. This goes beyond the schema's technical description.

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 specific action ('Query parse task status') and resource ('by uid'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like doc2x_parse_pdf_submit (which submits tasks) and doc2x_parse_pdf_wait_text (which waits for completion). It explicitly identifies the tool's role in checking status rather than initiating or retrieving content.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: after submitting a parse task via doc2x_parse_pdf_submit (referenced in the parameter description) and before fetching content via doc2x_convert_export_* tools. It clearly differentiates this status-checking tool from content-retrieval alternatives.

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