get_scanner_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates that the tool is pollable and that scanning was started elsewhere, but it does not explicitly state that the call is side-effect free, what the progress payload looks like, or when polling should stop. These are useful inferences but not explicit disclosures.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core purpose and endpoint are front-loaded, and the usage instruction follows immediately with the correct sequential relationship to scan_library.

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 with one well-documented parameter, and the description gives a clear use sequence after scan_library. However, there is no output schema, and the description never explains what the returned progress data looks like or how an agent can tell the scan is complete, leaving an important gap for a polling tool.

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 only parameter, library_id, is already fully documented in the schema with a description including 'from list_libraries'. The description's reference to 'a library's scanner' adds no meaningful semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get the progress of a library's file scanner', and even names the exact endpoint. Its focus on scanner progress clearly distinguishes it from generic siblings like get_status and get_job_report, and it is naturally paired with scan_library.

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 instruction 'Poll this after scan_library' gives explicit, actionable when-to-use guidance and makes the relationship to the initiating sibling clear. It does not mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives such as kill_scanner, so it stops just short of full routing guidance.

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