get_extraction_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It adds the return format (status and error fields), which provides behavioral insight. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether it can block, or behavior on missing documents/sifts. The disclosure is partially adequate but lacks completeness.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence capturing the core purpose, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. No unnecessary words, and the primary action is front-loaded. Every element 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?

For a simple status-check tool, the description covers purpose and return format. However, it fails to mention that this tool is typically used after run_extraction, does not specify error handling or parameter constraints, and lacks any output schema. More context would improve completeness given the sibling set.

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 provides brief explanations ('The document identifier', 'The sift identifier') that add minimal meaning beyond the parameter names. While not sufficient for complex parameters, it is acceptable for self-explanatory names and a simple tool.

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 'Check extraction status for a document on a sift' uses a specific verb 'Check' and clearly identifies the resource (extraction status) and context (document on a sift). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like run_extraction (which initiates extraction) and query_sift (which queries processed data), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 description implies usage for checking status but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., after calling run_extraction) or when not to use it. No guidance on prerequisites or context is provided, so the agent must infer usage from the tool name and siblings.

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