Check a job

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

The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: events are incremental via cursor, and the final answer is returned when the run completes. It aligns with readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true and adds meaningful context about how polling behaves.

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?

Three concise sentences, each with a distinct job: state the purpose, explain cursor behavior, and describe the completion result. No wasted words, and the most important information is 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?

For a simple polling tool with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior: progress, result, incremental events, and final answer. It does not detail event shape or error behavior, but given the annotations and simple parameter set, it is reasonably complete.

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 only 33%, but the description clarifies the cursor's purpose beyond the schema's 'Last event sequence number seen.' jobId is self-evident, and waitSeconds is weakly inferable by name, but its exact polling semantics are not described.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Poll a job for progress and its result.' It is specific about the tool's role but does not explicitly differentiate it from siblings like qoder_reply or qoder_run, so it stops short of a full 5.

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 implies the usage context well: it is for polling after a job has been started, and 'Pass the cursor from the previous call' indicates repeated polling. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is clear enough.

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