gateway_file_upload_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful 'owned by current actor' scoping constraint, but does not disclose behaviors such as not-found behavior, session lifecycle, or whether the session must be active.

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 focused sentence with the operation, object, and scope front-loaded. No filler or repetition of the name/title.

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 and benefits from a readOnly annotation and an output schema, but the description alone leaves usage timing and upload_id provenance implicit. It is minimally adequate for a status lookup but relies on sibling-tool names and inference.

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 0%, and the description does not explain upload_id beyond implying it identifies a file upload session. It does not state how to obtain it (e.g., from gateway_file_upload_create) or any format/expiry semantics, so the description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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?

Description states a specific operation (get), resource (file upload session), and access scope (owned by current actor). This differentiates it from sibling upload creation and download status tools without needing schema inspection.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus alternatives such as gateway_file_upload_create or gateway_file_download_status. The ownership qualifier is a permission constraint, not a usage condition, leaving invocation timing to inference.

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