get_transfer_status

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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing that the tool is not implemented and will return error code 'unsupported' (E3). This is critical behavioral information an agent needs to avoid relying on the tool.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the critical unsupported status is stated immediately after. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description is complete for this tool's context. It explains what the tool does, where the transfer comes from, and that it is unsupported with a specific error code. The presence of an output schema covers return-value details, so nothing essential is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by indicating that transfer_id refers to a transfer started by fetch_file, which helps the agent understand the parameter's origin. However, it does not explain the format or expected value beyond that, leaving some ambiguity.

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 function: getting progress/result of a transfer started by fetch_file. It names the specific resource (transfer) and the initiating operation (fetch_file), distinguishing it from sibling tools like cancel_transfer and list_files.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool: after a transfer has been started by fetch_file. It also explicitly warns that the tool is not implemented in this build, which is an important exclusion. It does not name alternative tools, but the unsupported status makes the primary guidance unambiguous.

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