get_container_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning that it is a read-only operation, potential response formats, or any side effects. For a simple query tool, this is insufficient.

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?

One sentence, no unnecessary words. The key information (verb, object, context) is front-loaded. It is efficiently written.

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 has a single parameter and no output schema. The description does not mention what the response contains (e.g., status values like 'processing', 'completed'), which is critical for an agent to interpret results correctly. For a read tool, this is a notable gap.

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?

The schema already provides a description for the only parameter (container_id). The tool's description adds the context that it is a 'media container', which is slightly helpful. However, it does not explain the expected format or how to obtain the container_id.

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 exactly what the tool does: check the processing status of a media container, with a helpful example (useful for videos). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are all creation or retrieval operations.

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 explicit instructions on when to use this tool or when not to. There are no sibling tools with similar functionality, so alternatives are not needed, but the description could clarify that it should be used after initiating a media upload or processing.

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