check_job

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses the read-only nature by stating 'check' and 'retrieve', lists the return fields, and notes the connection requirement. No side effects are mentioned, which is appropriate for a read operation.

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 concise, covering all essential points in three sentences without redundant details. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the primary action.

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 no output schema, the description enumerates the returned data (status, progress, estimated time, URLs) and includes the prerequisite connection. This makes the tool's behavior and expectations fully clear to an agent.

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 coverage is 100% with one parameter, and the description clarifies job_id is 'returned from a generation request', connecting it to the tool's purpose. The tool description adds context about asynchronous jobs, slightly exceeding the baseline.

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 clearly states the tool checks status and retrieves results of asynchronous jobs, distinguishing it from sibling generation tools. It explicitly mentions video and image generations are queued, making its purpose and scope unambiguous.

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 usage after a generation call by noting video and some image generations are queued, but it does not explicitly say 'use this after generate_video' or compare with alternatives. The prerequisite about requiring the full Creative Claw MCP server is a useful usage condition.

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