get_knowledge_processing_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses it's a polling endpoint and a query operation. While it does not detail rate limits or side effects, being a status check implies no destructive behavior. The revelation of polling intention adds transparency beyond the minimal.

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 a single sentence with a clear title and action. Every word is necessary: 'Estado de procesamiento de archivos' explains the resource, 'Obtiene el estado de procesamiento de todos los archivos de conocimiento' states the action, and 'polling endpoint' adds behavioral context. No wasted text.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate. It explains the purpose and polling nature, but could benefit from mentioning what statuses are returned or typical polling intervals. Still, it's largely complete for a status endpoint.

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?

There are no parameters, so the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning by specifying it retrieves status for all knowledge files, which is not evident from the empty schema alone. This is highly effective.

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 gets the processing status of all knowledge files, using a specific verb ('Obtiene') and resource. It labels itself a 'polling endpoint,' distinguishing it from siblings like check_docqa_file_status which targets individual 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?

The description indicates it's a polling endpoint, implying repeated use for monitoring, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or include exclusions. The context of siblings is clear enough for an agent to infer.

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