get_bounce_status

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

The annotations alone (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) leave the non-read-only claim unexplained; the description supplies the reason by disclosing that completion triggers file delivery, that takes are trimmed sample-exactly to the range, and that temporary '[bounce]' tracks are removed. That is meaningful side-effect disclosure beyond the structured fields, though auth/rate-limit or error-recovery behavior is not covered.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then structured by state (running / done / failed / cancelled). It is telegraphic and dense, but each fragment carries distinct information — no filler sentences.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe returns, and it does so exhaustively: phase, progress, eta_seconds while running; folder, manifest and per-file {stem, path, duration_seconds, peak_dbfs, silent} when done; plus the failed and cancelled cases. Nothing needed to interpret a response is missing.

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%, so the description carries the parameter alone, and it does: 'wait: seconds (0-50) to long-poll until the bounce finishes' gives units, valid range and observable effect. Only the default value (0) is left to the schema.

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 first sentence names a specific resource and state ('Progress of the current bounce') and the terminal behavior (deliver files, return paths), which cleanly separates it from siblings like get_status, bounce and cancel_bounce. An agent knows exactly what question this tool answers without opening the schema.

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?

It tells the agent to pass wait to long-poll until the bounce finishes, notes that 'cancelled' appears after cancel_bounce, and hands off explicitly with 'Next: analyze_audio(path)'. It stops short of stating when NOT to call it (e.g., when no bounce is in flight) or contrasting it directly with get_status.

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