Upload progress

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds the session expiration behavior (six hours) and the notion of inspecting 'finalized files' alongside the unfinished upload. This adds value beyond the annotations, though it does not detail the exact return format.

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 sentences with zero waste. The core action is front-loaded, followed by a critical temporal constraint and a clear pointer to the alternative tool. Every word earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., status object, list of files). While the read-only annotation covers safety and the schema covers parameters, the return behavior is left ambiguous. For a status-inspection tool, this is a notable gap but not fatal given the simple context.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (tenant_id, upload_id, share_token) are already documented. The description does not add extra meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 description uses a specific verb 'Inspect' and names the resource: an unfinished upload and its finalized files. It clearly distinguishes itself from operation_status by explicitly stating when to use that alternative. This is a clear, specific purpose that differentiates from siblings.

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 gives explicit context: 'before resuming' and a temporal constraint 'Sessions expire after six hours.' It also provides a when-not: 'Use operation_status for a commit whose response was lost.' This is explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling.

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