Poll an APK teardown job to check its status and retrieve the full result once done.
Poll an apk-teardown job's status/result. Returns the current status (queued, processing, done, failed, or lost) of a submitted job, and its full result once done.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | Job ID returned by Submit |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the status vocabulary (queued, processing, done, failed, lost) and that the full result is returned only once done, but it omits whether jobs expire, what happens on an unknown job_id, and whether polling is rate-limited.
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?
Two compact sentences, with the purpose front-loaded ahead of the return detail. The status enumeration is justified because no output schema exists, though the wording 'status/result' in the first sentence is slightly redundant with the second.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description does the essential job of naming the status set and clarifying that the full result arrives only at completion. It is nearly complete for a one-parameter polling tool, missing only error/expiry behavior.
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 100% and the single job_id parameter is documented as 'Job ID returned by Submit'. The description adds no format, validation, or sourcing detail beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 gives a specific verb (poll) and resource (apk-teardown job status/result), and enumerates the possible status values. It implicitly distinguishes itself from apk_teardown_submit by referencing 'a submitted job', though it doesn't name the sibling explicitly.
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 verb 'poll' implies repeated invocation after a submission, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no guidance on polling cadence or when to stop, and no reference to alternatives like apk_teardown_delete_job once the job is consumed. Usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.