get_job

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and safe non-destructive behavior. The description adds nothing beyond the annotation title 'Drawing progress'—no return format, polling advice, or auth needs are disclosed. Minimal added value beyond structured metadata.

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 short phrase with no waste, but it is arguably too terse to be useful; it is front-loaded but lacks a clear action verb and structure. Not wasteful, but not well-structured for an agent to parse action and intent.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description should explain what 'progress' entails (e.g., status, percentage) and how to obtain job_id. It omits both, leaving key context missing and relying entirely on annotations and the parameter name.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention the required job_id parameter at all. It fails to clarify format, source, or constraints, leaving the single parameter undocumented beyond its self-explanatory name.

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 'Progress of a drawing job' implies the tool retrieves job progress, but uses a noun phrase with no explicit verb and does not differentiate from sibling 'get_status' which could also report status of an entity. It identifies the resource but lacks specificity about the action and scope.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_status or preview tools. It provides no context about prerequisites, polling behavior, or conditions for calling, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely.

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