Check a background upload

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses that the tool reads progress held in the server process and makes no API call, making it safe to poll. It also explains that RBAC denials reflect API key scope, not tool failure, which prevents misinterpretation of errors.

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?

Three tightly-packed sentences cover purpose, input, behavior, state semantics, safety, and error interpretation. Every sentence contributes meaningful information, and the most important usage guidance appears at the beginning.

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?

With no output schema, the description partially compensates by enumerating the possible states and their meaning. It does not specify the exact response shape or whether progress percentages, timestamps, or other details are returned, but for a simple status-checking tool with one optional parameter, the provided context is nearly sufficient.

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 already fully documents uploadId, including the instruction to omit it to list all tracked uploads. The description essentially restates the schema's parameter guidance, adding no substantially new semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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's purpose: report progress on an upload started by 'upload_file' that was too large to finish in one call. This distinguishes it from the many file-list and metadata siblings, and the title reinforces the same function without being the sole source of meaning.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use the tool, what input to provide (the uploadId returned by upload_file), and what happens if omitted (list every tracked upload). It also gives the key behavioral rule: a file is only in the drive once its upload reports completed.

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