get_share_status

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

The description discloses the return fields but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only, safe operation. With no annotations provided, the burden falls on the description to convey side-effect-free polling behavior. It also does not mention any rate limits, resource costs, or whether repeated calls are appropriate.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the key concept ('Lightweight status poll') and lists the relevant fields. No filler or unnecessary words.

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 polling tool, the description provides the return fields and purpose. However, without annotations or an output schema, it would benefit from explicitly stating safe-to-call/read-only nature and any rate-limit considerations. It is adequate but has clear gaps for a complete 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?

The schema already documents the single 'id' parameter with 100% coverage. The description does not specify that 'id' refers to a share ID, though it is implied by the tool name and description. The generic schema description 'ID of the resource' could be clearer, but the tool name fills that 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 clearly states it is a 'Lightweight status poll for a share' and lists the specific fields returned (aasm_state, progress, code, url, direct_link). This distinguishes it from sibling get_share, which presumably fetches full share details, and other share-related tools.

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 word 'lightweight' hints that this is meant for periodic status checks rather than full share retrieval, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs get_share or other alternatives. No exclusions or conditions are given.

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