da_media_check_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states that the tool is a read-only check and specifies the output ('Returns initialization URL if not found'), but lacks details on error handling (e.g., what if site doesn't exist), side effects, or permission requirements. The behavior is minimally transparent.

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 extremely concise: two sentences without any wasted words. The key action and output are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's function.

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 is simple (3 params, no output schema), and the description adequately explains its purpose and output. However, it could be more complete by describing the format of the initialization URL or noting what happens when the index does exist (e.g., returns success). Overall, sufficient but not exhaustive.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (org, repo, path). The tool description does not add any additional meaning or context for these parameters, so it meets the baseline for high coverage but does not enhance semantics.

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 tool's purpose: 'Check if media index exists on a site. Returns initialization URL if not found.' It uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('media index on a site'), and the output condition distinguishes it from siblings like 'da_media_get_index' or 'da_media_search'.

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 used to verify index existence, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus similar tools (e.g., 'da_media_get_index') or provide exclusions. There is no guidance on prerequisites or conditions for use.

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