get_ingest_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies read-only and it names the returned concepts (status, progress), but it says nothing about terminal states, whether polling is expected, rate limits, or what an unknown ingest_id yields.

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 no filler. It earns its place but is borderline under-specified rather than purely concise.

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, no annotations, and an undocumented parameter, the description is the agent's entire information source, and it omits what statuses/progress look like, how completion is signaled, and when to re-call.

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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter has no description in the schema. The description at least ties the parameter to an ingest ID, but gives no format, origin, or validity guidance, so it only partially compensates.

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 ('Get') and resource ('per-op DAG status and progress') scoped to an ingest ID. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like ingest_video or get_transcript, though the jargon 'per-op DAG' is left unexplained.

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?

No explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternatives. Usage is only implied: you call this to check on an ingest, presumably after invoking ingest_video, but the description never says so or mentions polling.

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