check_collection

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the core behavior (returning progress/aggregation), implying a read-only status check, but it does not mention behavior on unknown/completed jobs, output shape, or polling suitability.

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?

One short sentence conveys the essential operation with no filler. The key concept (progress) is front-loaded before the aggregation detail.

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 simple one-parameter status tool this is usable, but without annotations or an output schema the agent still lacks information about the return format, error behavior, and the relationship to sibling lifecycle tools (start/list/cancel).

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 coverage is 0%, but there is only one required parameter, job_id, whose name is self-explanatory. The description adds context by tying the job to a '수집 작업' (collection job), though it does not explain where to obtain job_id or its format.

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 clear verb ('돌려준다' = returns) and identifies the resource: progress and current aggregation of a collection job. This distinguishes it from start_collection/cancel_collection/list_collections implicitly, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

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 this is a monitoring/status tool for an ongoing collection job, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use it instead of list_collections or check_site_whatsapp, nor when not to use it.

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