upload_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; 'Get' implies read-only and 'progress and output' tells the agent what fields come back, which is the key behavioral fact given there is no output schema. It does not cover what happens for an unknown/expired job_id, how long job records persist, or whether output is truncated by tail.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by the one non-obvious usage rule. Nothing redundant.

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 two-parameter, non-destructive polling tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the job_id contract, and the nature of the return value. Only edge cases (missing job, expired jobs, partial output) are left unstated.

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 only 50%: tail is documented inline while job_id has no schema description. The description compensates by explaining job_id semantics — its optionality and the list-all behavior when omitted — which is meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 verb (get) and resource (progress and output of uploads) and anchors it to the sibling that creates those uploads, upload_build. An agent can tell from the description alone that this is a polling/status tool, not a lister of builds or orgs.

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 sentence 'Omit job_id to list all jobs' gives explicit operating guidance for the two modes (single job vs. all jobs). It stops short of naming an alternative tool or exclusion conditions, but there is no obvious sibling competing for this job.

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