cassette_job_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does it well: it reveals that this is a re-attachment mechanism rather than a fresh poll, that calling it once is enough, and that wait_for_change_sec can block up to 30 seconds for a phase transition. The safety profile is unstated, but the core behavior an agent must know before invoking is present.

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 sentences with zero filler. The first sentence front-loads purpose and trigger conditions, the second delivers the usage directive and the important non-loop warning, and the third clarifies the wait parameter. Each sentence earns its place.

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 status/attach tool with an output schema and 4 optional parameters, the description covers the essential decision points: when to use it, what to do after the call ('act on the phase'), and the wait cap. Minor gaps remain (limit, session_id semantics), but nothing that would prevent a correct first invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly explains wait_for_change_sec (adds the 30-second cap, which the schema lacks) and implicitly ties job_id to the re-attachment scenario. However, limit and session_id receive no semantic guidance, leaving two of four parameters under-explained.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Re-attach to a job' whose cassette_run_job did not return. It enumerates the exact triggering scenarios (host restart, cancellation, wait=false) and explicitly disambiguates itself from a progress loop, so an agent can clearly distinguish this from siblings like cassette_run_job and cassette_cancel_job.

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 a clear when-to-use condition ('whose cassette_run_job call did not return') and a strong when-not signal ('it is not a progress loop'), plus a call-once directive. It stops short of naming a specific alternative tool for progress polling, so the exclusion is implicit rather than explicit, but the context is unambiguous.

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