Inspect a transfer session

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 reveal the key behavioral outcome: it reports direction, status, bytes received so far, and destination. The title 'Inspect' further implies a read-only operation. It does not mention error behavior or side effects, but for a status-reporting tool this is reasonably 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 one short sentence that immediately lists the reported information and then adds the practical restart use case. There is no filler, and the most important content is front-loaded.

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 output schema, the description names the return content (direction, status, bytes, destination) and the scenario where it matters. It could be more explicit about status meanings or whether the handle survives a restart, but for the tool's low complexity, this is adequate.

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 'handle' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions 'handle' or explains what it refers to. Agents must infer from the tool name and siblings that 'handle' identifies a transfer session, which is a significant semantic gap.

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 ('Report') and identifies the resource (a transfer session) with the specific fields it returns: direction, status, bytes received, and destination. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like file_transfer_write or file_transfer_commit, which are operations rather than inspection.

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 a clear context for when to use it: 'useful after a restart.' This implies using it to resume or verify a transfer session rather than starting or writing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the context is sufficient for typical agent routing.

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