Window Job Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and a closed-world scope, so safety is fully covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying it returns terminal state, errors, and structured results retained by the window host (implying it is only meaningful once a job has finished or timed out), but does not mention retention windows or what happens if request_id is unknown. With an output schema present, return-format disclosure is not required.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the action and resource with no filler. It is efficient, though it sacrifices some detail (params, alternatives) for brevity.

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 one-parameter, read-only status probe with an output schema, the essential function is conveyed: it reads terminal/timeout job outcomes. It stops short of explaining the request_id and does not route the agent among the several window_* / *_job_status siblings, leaving gaps for correct invocation.

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% and there is a single required parameter (request_id), yet the description never explains what request_id is, where it comes from, or its format. Since the schema is uninformative and the description does not compensate, an agent has no guidance on supplying the parameter.

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 names a specific verb (读/read) and resource (window-host-retained async/timeout job terminal state, errors, and structured results), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like window_job_submit and window_job_cancel. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with the closer sibling window_status or window_wait_for_change.

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 only implied: the mention of async/timed-out jobs suggests this is called after submit to retrieve results, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g., window_status for in-progress, window_job_cancel to abort). The agent must infer routing.

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