Upload session status

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by defining the state machine ('created' = still processing, 'available' = publishable), which tells the agent what to expect over repeated calls.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the state definitions are the only extra content and they earn their place.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the possible return states, which is the key information an agent needs. The only omission is where upload_id originates (presumably a prior upload call), a minor gap for a one-parameter read 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the burden falls on the description, but it never explains upload_id — only its name and uuid format are visible in the schema. The parameter is arguably self-explanatory for a status call, so this is a gap rather than a failure, but it is not compensated.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Return the state of an upload session') and goes further by naming the two concrete states. It also references nexus_publish_upload, which cleanly separates it from the other upload-family siblings.

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 workflow: check status, and when it reads 'available', proceed with nexus_publish_upload. That is clear context for when the result is actionable, but it never states explicitly when to call this tool (e.g., poll after nexus_upload_mod_file) or that it should not be used for anything else.

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