get_status

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses return structure comprehensively: enumerates status values (queued/processing/completed/failed), mentions progress percentage and current step. Missing error behavior (e.g., invalid requestId) and read-only nature, but effectively compensates for absent output schema.

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 with zero waste. First sentence defines action and scope; second sentence discloses return values. Front-loaded with essential information, no redundant phrases.

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?

Appropriate for tool complexity (single param, 100% schema coverage, simple behavior). Description adequately compensates for missing output schema by detailing return structure. Links to sibling create_short via 'short creation request' context, completing the operational picture.

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 coverage is 100% with requestId fully documented (type, pattern, description linking to create_short). Description does not mention parameters, but baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema documentation is complete; no additional parameter semantics needed in description.

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?

Clear specific verb 'Check' with explicit resource 'processing status and progress of a short creation request'. Distinguishes from sibling get_shorts (which returns content) and list_requests (which lists multiple) by focusing on detailed progress polling of a single creation job.

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?

Implies usage context by referencing 'short creation request' and status lifecycle (queued/processing/completed/failed), suggesting polling workflow after create_short. Lacks explicit 'when to use vs alternatives' statement (e.g., contrasting with list_requests), but context is clear from description and parameter schema reference to create_short.

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