Sdk Gp Job Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds that the status spans queueing, progress, result, and error states, which is useful behavioral context. It says nothing about whether the call blocks, polling cadence, or authentication requirements.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that identifies the resource and enumerates the reported states with no filler. Efficient and well-structured, though it is short enough that there was room to add parameter or usage context.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required. The tool is a simple read, but the definition omits any indication of how sdk_session_ref and job_id are obtained and how frequently to poll, which is the main missing context for an async-job status tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, so both required parameters (job_id, sdk_session_ref) carry no documented meaning in the schema. The description does not compensate at all — it never mentions the job handle or session reference, leaving the agent to infer their origin from sibling tools.

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+resource: reading the queue/progress/result/error status of an SDK asynchronous GP job. The enumerated states make the purpose unambiguous. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like arcgis_pro_sdk_gp_job_submit, _cancel, or arcgis_pro_window_job_status.

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?

Usage is implied by the context of async GP jobs (poll after submission), but the description never states when to call this versus waiting tools or the submit/cancel siblings. No exclusions, prerequisites, or polling guidance are given.

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