List background tasks

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, and the description adds the meaningful follow-up behavior: checking whether consumption succeeded and which document was produced. It avoids repeating the annotation and contributes a useful workflow detail, though it does not describe pagination or response format.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's domain and then immediately giving a concrete usage pattern. Every word contributes; there is no filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully communicates the key outcome: seeing whether consumption succeeded and which document resulted. It could mention status filters or default pagination, but the upload-follow-up scenario is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 description coverage is about 60%, with status and acknowledged already explained in the schema. The description adds critical provenance for task_id by identifying it as the value returned by paperless_upload_document, making the most important parameter actionable. It leaves page and page_size semantically thin, but they are conventional.

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?

States a specific resource (paperless background tasks) with a concrete inspection purpose, and clarifies typical task types like document consumption and index rebuilds. The tie-in to paperless_upload_document makes the tool's role in an upload workflow unmistakable and distinguishes it from document-centric siblings.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to call it ('Use this to follow up on an upload') and exactly how to use it by passing the task_id from paperless_upload_document. It does not enumerate when not to use it or alternatives, so it stops short of a full 5.

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