nexus_job_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive read. The description adds no further behavioral details (e.g., error behavior or auth), but given the annotations cover safety, the minimal description is acceptable.

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 one short sentence with no filler. It is immediately clear and front-loaded.

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 is low-complexity with one parameter and an output schema. The description plus annotations provide enough context for the agent to invoke it correctly. No additional return values or error handling are needed since the output schema exists.

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 has one parameter (job_id) with no description (0% coverage). The description's 'by id' clarifies that job_id is the identifier, but it doesn't elaborate on format or valid values. For a simple parameter, this adds marginal value beyond the schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'Return' with the resource 'status of a job', and specifies lookup by 'id'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like nexus_list_jobs (listing) and nexus_job_cost (cost).

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 no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. It implies usage for checking job status but lacks any mention of preconditions or situations where other tools would be more appropriate.

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