get_job

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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine non-obvious behavior: jobs persist across MCP disconnects while the local worker lives, and interrupted jobs may still have usable outputs on disk. It omits what an invalid or expired job_id yields and how status is reported.

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?

Three sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler; each sentence carries a distinct payload (scope, durability, failure handling). Minor cost: the durability and failure-handling sentences blend behavioral fact with procedural advice, which slightly muddies the structure.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description is the only source for return shape, yet it never enumerates what a job query returns (status values, output paths, error fields) beyond alluding to 'output paths/provider logs'. For a two-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, the coverage is adequate but leaves the agent guessing at response interpretation.

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 exactly 50%: wait_seconds carries a full description, job_id carries none, and the tool description adds no parameter guidance for either. The undocumented parameter is a self-evident required identifier and the description's 'existing image job' framing gives it meaning, so this lands at the baseline rather than below 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Query an existing image job') and immediately bounds the scope with 'without submitting or retrying', which implicitly separates it from the submit-style siblings generate_image and edit_image. It stops short of naming those siblings, so an agent must infer the contrast rather than being told it.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use context (polling an already-submitted job) and a concrete decision rule for the hard case: on interrupted/unknown outcome, inspect output paths/provider logs 'before considering another paid request'. It does not explicitly say 'use generate_image to start a job', but the exclusion of submitting/retrying covers the alternative in practice.

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