Get Wiki upload session

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the bar is lower; the description adds genuine behavioral value by disclosing the session state machine (not_started → in_progress → finished) and the fact that the file only becomes usable after the session finishes. It does not mention polling cadence or any rate limits, so it is not fully rich.

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 tight sentences with the identity/scoping statement front-loaded and the usage directive second. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description does the remaining work by naming the fields the call returns (status, file name/size, storage) and the state values to expect. An agent has enough to call it correctly and interpret results without further documentation.

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 schema already documents session_id as a UUID4. The description reinforces 'by its UUID' but adds no format, validation or sourcing detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Current state of a Wiki file upload session by its UUID') and even enumerates the returned fields (status, file name/size, storage), which clearly distinguishes it from the mutating siblings wiki_uploadsessions_create/finish/abort. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so it lands at a strong 4 rather than 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 second sentence gives concrete usage context ('Poll this to watch a session move not_started → in_progress → finished before the file is attached to a page'), telling the agent exactly when this read-only tool is appropriate in the upload lifecycle. It offers clear context but no explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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