get_scan_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool is a read-only status check and that it relates to a background process, but it doesn't describe what the response contains (e.g., progress percentage, state, error info) or whether the status is pollable. The output schema exists and may cover return values, but the description itself adds only modest 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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the action ('Check the progress') and immediately provides the key context (background folder scan, started by `scan_documents`). No wasted words.

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 one-parameter status-check tool, the description is nearly complete. It identifies the trigger (`scan_documents`), the required input (`track_id`), and the purpose. The output schema exists, so return values don't need to be described. A minor gap is not mentioning polling behavior or whether the tool is safe to call repeatedly, but the simplicity of the tool makes this a minor omission.

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 the schema already documents the single parameter `track_id` as the tracking ID returned by `scan_documents`. The description reinforces this by mentioning the tracking ID, but it doesn't add new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: checking the progress of a background folder scan started by `scan_documents`. It uses a specific verb ('Check'), a specific resource ('progress of a background folder scan'), and explicitly references the initiating sibling tool, which distinguishes it from other status-related siblings like get_pipeline_status or get_track_status.

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 the usage context: use this tool after starting a scan with `scan_documents`, and it requires the tracking ID returned by that call. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the reference to `scan_documents` and the track_id parameter provide clear contextual guidance. A small gap is not mentioning that other status tools exist for different workflows.

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