get_knowledge_file_upload_operation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose important traits: the call is read-only ('仅查询'), returns sensitive credentials that must never be surfaced in chat/logs/command args, and pending/processing status does not mean completion. It stops short of describing what the response contains or how failures surface beyond the schema's note about explicit failure.

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?

Four short sentences with no filler, and the purpose plus the 'only the original operation' constraint are front-loaded. The remaining sentences are terse operational warnings, each carrying a distinct constraint, though the dense phrasing makes some rules easy to skim past.

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 single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: read-only intent, credential sensitivity, status semantics, and the resume-only constraint. Return-shape details are the main omission, but the schema partially compensates on the parameter side.

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 schema description already states that operation_id must be reused on resume and only works when server negotiation supports it. The description largely repeats that constraint rather than adding new meaning, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opening line '仅查询原知识库文件上传凭据操作' gives a specific verb (query) and resource (original knowledge-file upload credential operation), and the word '原' plus '仅' scopes it to resume-style lookups rather than new uploads. It distinguishes itself implicitly from siblings like get_upload_operation and get_knowledge_file_upload_token, though it never names them, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Clear when-to-use guidance: resume by querying the original operation_id, keep the same client_request_id and uploaded object, and do not re-upload when rate-limited on save. It also states a when-not condition (cannot auto-request a new key). The only gap is that it doesn't explicitly point to the sibling tool to call when a new key is legitimately needed.

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