Get manual asset-upload processing status

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses asynchronous behavior, null-field behavior for never-processed uploads, and an empirically confirmed caveat that it tracks CSV-type imports only. It warns against interpreting null as failure for project-file uploads and directs to query_assets, adding critical behavioral context.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then provides practical polling guidance, then a clearly-marked empirical caveat. Every sentence carries necessary information, and the structure is easy to scan despite the caveat's length.

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?

The tool is simple (no params) and output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers the essential operational context: async behavior, null semantics, and a critical exception, making it fully complete for an agent to select and invoke 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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% by default and there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline for zero-param tools is 4; no additional parameter information is needed or possible.

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 ('Check') and resource ('processing status of the most recent file uploaded via Tenable OT's Manual Uploads data source'), clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like query_assets. It also names the related upload tool for full context.

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 describes when to use it (after a manual upload, poll if not yet updated), what to do if it hasn't updated, and when NOT to rely on it (project-file/OTD uploads), citing an alternative (query_assets). This is exemplary usage guidance.

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