get_status

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the HTTP method (GET) and authentication scope (authenticated user's session), but does not mention idempotency, rate limits, or behavior when no job exists. The output schema is present but not referenced.

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 two concise sentences. The first states the core purpose, the second adds technical detail (HTTP method and session context). No extraneous information.

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?

With no parameters and an output schema (unknown content), the description covers the resource and authentication. It lacks explicit sequencing (e.g., 'call after starting a job') but is otherwise sufficient for a simple status check.

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?

There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the absence is self-evident. Baseline for no parameters is 4.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'conversion status for the authenticated user's current session job'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like convert_pdf (performs conversion) and get_convert_settings (retrieves settings) by specifying it's for status of a specific session job.

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 usage after starting a conversion job but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like wait_and_download. No exclusions or contextual triggers are provided, leaving the agent to infer proper usage.

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