shell_check_job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that tail_lines controls output length and implies a read-only nature ('Read status and tail output'), but it does not explain error behavior, handling of missing jobs, or whether output is persisted after job completion. Some useful behavioral context is present, but gaps remain.

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 well-structured with 'Purpose:', 'Constraints:', and 'Example:' sections. It is concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. No redundancy or fluff.

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 simple two-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, constraints, an example, and a fallback alternative. It does not explicitly link to sibling tools like shell_exec_background for obtaining a job_id, but context from the tool name and sibling list makes this inferable. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining both parameters: job_id identifies the job and tail_lines controls the amount of recent output. It also includes a concrete example showing parameter values. However, it does not state defaults or bounds for tail_lines, though the schema provides a default.

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 function with a specific verb and resource: 'Read status and tail output from a background shell job.' This distinguishes it from siblings like shell_exec (which runs commands) and shell_kill_job (which terminates jobs). The purpose is immediately clear and unambiguous.

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 usage context by mentioning constraints and an alternative for inspecting artifacts: 'inspect artifacts with workspace_read_file/shell_exec.' It implicitly signals that this tool is for checking output, not for starting or killing jobs, but does not explicitly exclude those use cases. The example adds practical guidance.

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