voicestudio_job_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this is a polling operation and that job-ID namespaces differ, but says nothing about terminal states, return content, or whether polling must be repeated.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action. The second sentence is slightly cryptic but every clause carries information; little waste.

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 and one undocumented parameter, the description should ideally describe the status payload or polling semantics. It covers the namespace distinction but leaves the agent without a clear picture of what a poll returns or when to stop.

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 coverage is 0% and the single job_id parameter is undocumented. The description partially compensates by clarifying that gateway job IDs are distinct from backend batch/dub IDs, which is real semantic value, but it never says where the ID comes from or its format.

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 and resource ('Poll a gateway background job') and scopes it against backend batch/dub jobs, which are declared separate. This differentiates it from related siblings, though it never names them directly.

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?

It implicitly tells you to use this for gateway jobs and warns that backend batch/dub job IDs are handled elsewhere via their HTTP operations. However, the routing advice ('inspect their HTTP operations') is vague and does not name the alternative sibling (e.g. voicestudio_get_operation), leaving the agent to infer the correct call.

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