Check batch progress

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining the output structure when state is 'completed', specifically mentioning `ready_to_save` and `items`. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent anticipate the response.

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 long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word earns its place. It avoids fluff and clearly presents the conditional detail about the completed state without repetition.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description sufficiently explains the key aspects of the tool's behavior. It covers the completed state's output meaning and implies progress for other states. It does not detail any error handling or pagination, but for a simple status check, this level 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 input schema has only batch_id with no description, and description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention batch_id at all, so it fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation. Although the parameter is self-explanatory, the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema.

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 starts with 'Progress for a running or finished batch,' which clearly indicates the tool reports batch status. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on status rather than actions like archiving or ingesting, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve.' The added detail about completed state further clarifies its purpose.

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 when to use the tool: to check progress of a batch, whether running or finished. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives, likely because no sibling tool serves the same status-checking role. This is adequate but not explicit.

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