Perch job status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds modest value by indicating the call returns both status and, once ready, the result, but says nothing about whether results expire, whether polling is required, or what terminal states exist.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though efficiency here comes partly from under-specification rather than tight editing.

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 tool with one required parameter, no output schema and no result-format documentation, the description does far too little: it never describes what a 'status' value looks like, whether the call is safe to poll repeatedly (though annotations imply idempotence), or how it relates to perch_job_cancel. The annotations carry the safety story, but the return semantics remain unexplained.

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% and the description only restates the parameter name ('by job_id') without format, provenance, or validation details. Since the sole input is required, the description should clarify where the job_id comes from (presumably delegate_to_perch) and that it is not a job name or index.

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 names a specific verb+resource pair ('Get status/result of a delegated Perch job') and ties it to a job_id, so the agent knows exactly what the tool returns. It stops short of differentiating itself from the sibling perch_status, leaving the boundary between the two ambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus perch_status or perch_job_cancel, both of which are plausibly relevant to a non-terminal job. The phrase 'delegated Perch job' hints that it follows delegate_to_perch, but that is inference rather than stated guidance.

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