Get Job Status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns status and elapsed milliseconds, that it is designed for polling, and that completion is signaled by the finished flag. This adequately conveys the non-terminal, read-only nature of the operation without contradicting anything.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return values and the next step. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 one-parameter status-polling tool with an output schema, the description fully covers purpose, usage, return values, and the subsequent call to get_job_result. Nothing essential is missing.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage with a clear description of job_id as coming from execute_experiment. The tool description adds minimal extra parameter context beyond implying the job is a background command, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 states a specific action — checking on a command started with background=true — and clearly identifies the target resource (a job). It also distinguishes itself from get_job_result by describing the polling-to-result handoff, so an agent can tell the two sibling tools apart.

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 gives clear when-to-use guidance: use it for background commands, poll it, then call get_job_result once finished is true. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives beyond the get_job_result handoff, but the context is strong enough for correct selection.

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