Get workout upload status

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

Annotations already mark it readOnly and openWorld. The description adds concrete return behavior: the set of status values and the fact that workoutKey appears once processing completes, which helps the agent interpret results. It does not cover rate limits or auth, but with annotations present it adds useful 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then return values, then next action. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (status values and workoutKey) and how to proceed. Annotations cover safety, and the schema covers the input, so nothing essential 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 100%, and the single uploadId parameter is fully documented as the ID returned by upload_workout. The description reinforces the dependency but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Polls') and resource ('processing status of a workout upload'), identifies the initiating sibling (upload_workout), and distinguishes its output from get_workout. An agent can tell this is a status-checking tool rather than a data-retrieval or upload tool.

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?

Explicitly ties invocation to a prior upload_workout call and directs the agent to use the returned workoutKey with get_workout for full detail. It does not explicitly state when not to call it (e.g., avoid polling repeatedly), but the context and alternative are clear.

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