get_upload_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does add useful behavioral context: 'polls' implies transient, non-destructive repeated reads, and the status examples ('Queued', 'Processing', 'Processed', 'Error') plus the delayed appearance of workoutKey clarify when the poll is complete. However, it does not disclose behavior for an invalid/unknown uploadId or whether there is any terminal retry/error pattern, which is a noticeable gap for an unannotated polling tool.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying useful cargo: purpose, return shape, and downstream routing. No filler, and the main verb and context are front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 (one required string parameter), has no annotations, and no output schema. The description compensates well by specifying the status enum and the workoutKey result, plus the follow-up step with get_workout. The only gaps are edge-case behavior for invalid upload IDs or polling termination decisions, which are minor for a tool this small.

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%, and the input schema already explains uploadId as 'Upload ID returned by upload_workout.' The description merely repeats this provenance ('initiated by upload_workout') without adding new syntax, format, or lifecycle details, so it does not raise the value above the baseline.

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 ('polls') and resource ('processing status of a workout upload'), and explicitly ties it to upload_workout as its origin. This clearly distinguishes it from get_workout and other siblings by framing it as the polling stage in an upload workflow.

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 workflow is explicitly laid out: this poller follows upload_workout ('initiated by upload_workout') and its output is consumed by get_workout ('Use the returned workoutKey with get_workout for full detail'). This gives the agent exact when-to-use context and routes it to the correct next step.

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