Get media upload

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

Annotations already establish read-only and non-destructive behavior, so the bar for extra transparency is lower. The description adds useful context about the upload being short-lived and the URL being a fresh temporary URL, which goes beyond the schema. It still doesn't disclose what happens on expiry or when includeUrl is false, but it provides reasonable behavioral color.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler. The key purpose is front-loaded, and the optional URL behavior is stated efficiently. Every clause adds meaning.

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 output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description supplies the essential behavioral and parameter semantics. It explains the staging context, the short-lived nature, and the optional URL return. It could mention explicit expiration or null-handling behavior, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It covers uploadId implicitly as the identifier of the upload being queried and includeUrl explicitly via 'Optionally returns a fresh temporary media_url.' The mapping is clear enough for an agent to use both parameters correctly.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get status for a short-lived MCP media upload.' It further distinguishes this from generic media or status tools by noting it can 'return a fresh temporary media_url for an already-uploaded staging object,' making the resource and behavior unambiguous.

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 phrase 'Internal/app staging helper' gives useful context about intended use, and the short-lived upload description implies this is for checking upload state rather than production media retrieval. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over siblings like get_media, get_status, or complete_media_upload, nor any usage exclusions.

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