Get Unified Upload Status

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

Beyond the annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds critical behavioral context: the mandatory polling until status is available, the state transition flow (receiving → scanning → available) and the direct transition when malware scanning is disabled, and the common error status codes (401, 403, 404). These details are not implied by the annotations and significantly aid correct usage.

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 long but information-dense, with the core purpose front-loaded. Each sentence contributes value, covering response fields, usage, defaults, errors, and the endpoint. It earns a 4 rather than 5 because it includes some redundancy (e.g., 'Returns a single JSON object' after already stating retrieval) and the internal contradiction about required parameters adds noise.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, response contents, usage guidance, state transitions, defaults, error handling, and endpoint. It is nearly complete; the minor gap is the unmentioned url_expires_in parameter (though the schema covers it) and the slight inconsistency in parameter requirements, preventing a perfect score.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that company_id and project_id default to procore_set_config values and that upload_id must resolve to an existing parent record. However, this conflicts with the schema's required flags, and url_expires_in is not addressed in the description, leaving some ambiguity despite the schema's own description.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieves status and metadata for a unified upload by upload ID.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on status retrieval and explicitly stating 'Use this when you already know which unified upload status you want and need its full field set,' which differentiates it from list or URL-generation tools.

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 provides explicit usage scenarios: polling upload progress, inspecting upload details after creation, and the mandatory polling requirement before download. It also directs the agent to resolve upload_id with the matching list tool, offering a clear alternative and prerequisite step, which is more explicit than most tool descriptions.

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