get_media_upload

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the HTTP method and endpoint, authentication requirements, a detailed response field list with status values, and relevant error codes, giving an agent strong operational context.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then organized into useful sections for endpoint, authentication, use cases, response fields, and errors. It is longer than minimal, but most sections earn their place because there is no output schema.

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 and no annotations, the description compensates by documenting authentication, the endpoint, response fields, status values, and error codes. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool and interpret common outcomes.

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 100%, so the single upload_token parameter is already documented in the schema. The description mentions upload_token only indirectly in the response fields and error codes, adding little meaning beyond the schema's own explanation.

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 states a specific verb and resource: returns information about a media upload, including upload status and processing state, and gives the exact endpoint GET /media/upload/. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as get_media or upload_media.

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 Use Cases section gives clear contexts for calling the tool: checking upload status after initiating a media upload, verifying processing completion, getting a media ID, and monitoring progress. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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