slide_get_file_restore_push

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden, and it clearly communicates a read-only status lookup. However, it does not disclose what statuses may be returned, whether the operation can be polled, or any error/edge-case behavior, so it is only minimally transparent.

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 a single, well-structured sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the action and resource, making it immediately scannable for an agent.

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 simple two-parameter get-status tool, the description covers the core purpose and the schema covers all parameters. However, with no annotations, no output schema, and sibling tools that represent related but distinct operations, slightly more context about what distinguishes this operation or what the status response looks like would improve completeness.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the input schema ('File restore ID.' and 'File restore push ID.'), and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra parameter context, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a clear verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('status of a single file restore push operation'), and a singular scope. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like slide_get_file_restore or slide_list_file_restore_pushes, which prevents a 5.

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 that the tool should be used when an agent needs the status of one file restore push operation, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. It does not mention alternatives such as browsing or listing file restore pushes, so usage context is only implied.

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