arm_poll_job_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. The 'GET' method explicitly signals a read-only, non-destructive operation, which is a valuable behavioral trait. However, it does not mention authentication, rate limits, or response format details, but the GET method and 'poll' wording provide sufficient transparency for a safe read operation.

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 a single concise sentence preceded by the endpoint path. It is front-loaded with the most important information (HTTP method and resource) and contains no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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?

The tool has no output schema, but the description does not explain what the response contains beyond 'current status'. It fails to describe the return value's format (e.g., a string, enum, or object), which is a significant gap given the absence of both annotations and an output schema. The parameter schema is complete, but the lack of response details makes the description incomplete.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for all five parameters, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond indicating that `buildNumber` is optional in the endpoint path, which the schema also states. Therefore, it meets the baseline for a fully schema-covered tool without adding extra semantics.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Polls the current status of a CI job build,' with the specific HTTP GET endpoint. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like arm_abort_ci_job or arm_trigger_build, as it is explicitly for status polling.

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 usage context is implied by the word 'polls' but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like arm_ci_job_history or arm_latest_results. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name and endpoint.

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