get_folder_processing_status

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

The description discloses the return values: whether currently processing and counts for processing/pending/completed/failed. With no annotations, this is sufficient for a read-only operation; it does not hide any behavioral traits.

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 a single sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and output, with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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 description fully explains the return data (processing flag and four counts) without an output schema. It is adequate for the tool's simplicity and complements the schema well. Could specify data types but still complete enough.

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 single parameter folder_id is described in the schema as 'Folder ID (from list_folders).' The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 action 'get' and the resource 'OCR processing status of a folder', specifying the returned data (processing flag and counts). It distinguishes from siblings like get_processing_status (likely global) and get_folder_stats (different stats), though not explicit.

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 the tool is for retrieving folder-level processing status, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over similar tools like get_processing_status or get_folder_stats, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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