get_job_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The description implies a read-only operation by focusing on 'status', but it does not explicitly state that the tool is non-destructive or safe. It also does not disclose authentication needs, error behavior, or rate limits. The score is moderate because the purpose is clear and the operation is simple.

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, clear sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded and every word is necessary. This is ideal conciseness.

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?

Given the tool has one required parameter, no annotations, and an output schema (not shown), the description provides enough context for a simple status check. However, it does not mention what the status contains (e.g., state, progress) or any edge cases. For a simple tool, this is moderately complete but could be improved.

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 0% description coverage; the description does not elaborate on the 'job_id' parameter beyond its name. However, the parameter is self-explanatory (an integer ID for the job). The main description mentions 'specific SSB job', which indirectly clarifies the parameter. This is adequate but minimal.

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 explicitly states 'Get status of a specific SSB job.' It uses a specific verb (Get) and clearly identifies the resource (status of an SSB job). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_job_state or get_job_events.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or contrast with similar tools (e.g., get_job_state). Without such context, an AI agent might struggle to select the correct tool among many job-related siblings.

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