check_docqa_file_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic function (checking status) without revealing whether the tool is read-only, if it requires files to be already uploaded, or what the side effects or return format are. This is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 concise (one line) and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it contains a stray placeholder '[query]' which is confusing and suggests incomplete editing. Additionally, the description is in Spanish while sibling tool names are in English, causing potential inconsistency.

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 lacks important details such as what status values are possible, how to interpret the output, and any prerequisites. Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), a more complete description should at least mention the nature of the status checks. The placeholder further undermines completeness.

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?

The input schema has one parameter with a description in the schema itself, resulting in 100% schema coverage. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, but it also does not contradict or mislead. Thus, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool checks the processing status of Doc-QA files. The verb 'Verificar' (Check) and resource 'estado de archivos Doc-QA' are specific, making the purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_docqa_files' or 'get_docqa_detail', which may have overlapping functionality.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, limitations, or contexts that would help an agent decide to use this tool over similar ones.

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