check_upload

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that only links minted by the same API key/token are visible, returns `not found` for others, and describes the fate of stuck `uploading` links. It also explains input format restrictions. It doesn't explicitly state read-only nature, but given the tool's purpose, the behavior is well-covered.

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 longer than average but every sentence serves a purpose. It is well-structured with clear sections for return values, usage, security/scope, error handling, and parameter format. It front-loads the core purpose and avoids fluff. Minor redundancy in Args (repeats the same info) but not excessive.

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 tool with an output schema, the description is thorough. It covers all possible return states, explains the `not found` case, gives timeout guidance, and specifies the exact input format. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return structures, but the description still preemptively covers them in plain language.

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% (only type and title), so the description must fully define the parameter. It does so explicitly: 'Pass the `upload_id` itself — the short handle from `request_upload`, not the upload URL and not the token after the `#`. Anything else is refused without a lookup.' Also repeats in Args. This adds rich meaning beyond the bare 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Ask what happened to an upload link you minted with `request_upload`.' It specifies the resource (upload link) and the action (checking status), and distinguishes itself from sibling `request_upload` by focusing on post-mint status. The enumerated possible return states (`pending`, `uploading`, `completed`, `expired`) further clarify its function.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Use it to confirm a transfer really finished before you tell the user it did, and to get the sha256 if they want to verify it.' Also gives a when-not-to-use scenario: if `uploading` persists for more than a couple of minutes, tells you to mint a new link with `request_upload`. This clearly differentiates from siblings and offers alternatives.

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