check_paper_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses all possible statuses ('processing', 'completed', 'failed'), their meanings, and the structure of the completed response including download URLs. It does not cover error cases beyond 'failed' or mention side effects, but for a polling tool this is reasonably comprehensive.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Status values, Completed response). Every sentence adds value. While not excessively long, it could be slightly more concise—for example, merging the 'Returns' section with the status descriptions. Overall, it is efficient and front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is remarkably complete. It explains the purpose, the parameter source, expected statuses with actionable advice, and the full structure of the completed response. No critical information 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%, meaning the description must compensate. The sole parameter 'generation_id' is explained as 'The ID returned by start_paper_generation()', adding crucial context beyond the schema's title and type. This helps the agent understand how to obtain the correct value.

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 checks the status and progress of a paper generation, specifying the resource ('paper generation') and the verb ('check'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools: 'start_paper_generation' creates a generation and 'list_my_papers' lists existing papers, while this tool checks a specific generation's 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 when to use the tool: after calling 'start_paper_generation' to monitor progress. It also advises to start a new one if the status is 'failed'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Sibling tools are provided in context but not referenced in usage guidelines.

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