get_upload_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 disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'check the status,' which implies a read operation but does not explicitly state that it is read-only, what statuses are returned, whether it polls, or any error behavior. Minimal transparency is provided.

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 concise and well-structured. It opens with the purpose in one sentence, then includes a brief Args section with a clear description of the parameter. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 but has no output schema and no annotations. The description explains what it does and the parameter, but does not describe the return value, possible statuses, or how to interpret the result. This leaves the agent without essential context for handling the output, making it incomplete for a status-checking 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 input schema only specifies job_id as a required string. The description adds meaningful context by stating it is 'the job ID returned by upload_local_file_background,' which clarifies the origin and purpose of the parameter. This is valuable given the 0% schema description coverage.

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 checks the status of a background upload and explicitly references the initiating function, upload_local_file_background. This makes the purpose specific and distinguishes it from general status tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool list_upload_jobs, which could also relate to upload status.

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 usage after upload_local_file_background by mentioning the job ID from that function, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like list_upload_jobs, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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