get_job_status

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

With no annotations, the description fully details behavior: read-only, instant, no side effects. Explains return format with all fields, status enumeration, progress range, and error modes with exact error strings. Discloses information disclosure design (job_not_found hides cross-principal info).

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?

Well-structured with clear sections (WHEN TO USE, PREREQUISITES, LATENCY, RETURNS, ERROR MODES). Uses formatting for emphasis. Slightly long but every sentence earns its place. Could merge some lines for brevity, but overall effective.

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?

Output schema exists, but description still fully documents return fields, status values, and error cases. Covers polling guidance, prerequisites, and behavioral nuances. No gaps remain for a complex polling tool.

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 100% and schema alone describes job_id as required string. The description adds context: its origin from trigger_sync/refresh_wiki and an example prefix 'job_', which helps the agent understand where to get the value. Value-add beyond schema justifies 4 rather than baseline 3.

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?

Clearly states it checks background job progress/result, explicitly names trigger_sync and refresh_wiki as the tools that produce job_ids, distinguishing it from sibling tools like ask_channel or find_decisions.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use: poll after trigger_sync/refresh_wiki. Includes polling cadence (2-3s, back off), prerequisites (valid job_id, owned by caller), and states what it does NOT do (answers channel questions). Even mentions an equivalent alternative (reading atlas resource).

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