twitter_media_status

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by mentioning it's a read operation with 'no daily write cap applies' and pointing out that it 'Reads through YOUR OWN registered session', implying authentication side effects. However, it does not detail potential latency or error conditions beyond the error object in the return.

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 moderately lengthy but each sentence contributes unique information: purpose, usage, return fields, auth, and read-only status. It is structured logically, though the final sentence about read-only nature is a bit redundant with the annotations. Overall, no 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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description provides essential return fields (media_id, state, check_after_secs, progress_percent, error object). It covers purpose, usage timing, authentication, and read-only nature. It could be more detailed about error handling or potential failures, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 schema already provides descriptions for all parameters (media_id, ct0, proxy_url, auth_token, user_agent). The description only reiterates the auth_token/ct0 requirement and mentions media_id, without adding further detail about proxy_url or user_agent. It does mention the output parameter check_after_secs, but that is not an input parameter, so the added value is limited.

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's function: 'Check whether an uploaded media_id has finished processing' and distinguishes it from the upload tool by explaining the asynchronous nature. It uses specific verbs and provides a precise scope.

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?

Explicitly instructs when to use it: 'before you attach it to a tweet' and explains the polling behavior: 'Poll this until then'. It also gives a clear directive to honor check_after_secs to avoid tight-looping, which serves as practical usage guidance.

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