get_batch_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. "Checks" strongly signals a non-mutating read, and the mention of progress and resume state tells the agent roughly what comes back, but it says nothing about error behavior for a nonexistent directory or whether the check is cheap/safe to poll repeatedly.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the object of the check (progress and resume state) is stated before the location. Nothing could be trimmed without losing 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?

For a one-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what is checked and where, which is essentially all an agent needs to invoke it. Minor gaps around preconditions (does the directory need to exist?) keep it from being complete.

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 100%, so baseline is 3; the description goes slightly further by framing output_dir as the conversion directory whose batch state is being inspected, tying the parameter to the tool's purpose. It still adds no constraint on path format or whether the directory must already exist.

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 specific verb ("Checks") and a specific resource ("batch progress and resume state of a conversion directory"), so an agent knows this is a status-inspection tool. It implicitly separates itself from siblings like batch_convert_folder and convert_book_to_word by being read-only and observational, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase "resume state" hints that this is queried before resuming an interrupted batch, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the sibling tools. An agent can infer the context but is not told it.

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