mystorax_job_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The term 'Poll' implies repeated invocation but the description doesn't clarify whether this is a blocking call, how long to wait between polls, what states the job can be in, or what happens when a job is not found. This is notable for a polling tool that agents may need to call repeatedly.

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 extremely brief at one line, which is efficient and front-loaded. There is no wasted language. However, the brevity borders on under-specification rather than concise completeness, though no filler exists.

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 polling tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description is substantially under-equipped. It doesn't explain return format, job states, polling cadence, or error handling. The 'wait_id' reference hints at a secondary mechanism that is entirely 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%, so the description must compensate for documenting the lone parameter, job_id. However, the description only mentions 'by job_id / wait_id' without clarifying what job_id vs wait_id are, their format, or their relationship. The description names the parameter but adds no semantic depth beyond the schema.

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+resource ('Poll durable job status by job_id') which communicates the core action. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like mystorax_science_status or mystorax_wait_stream_hint, which could overlap in purpose. The intent is understandable but the differentiation from other status-related tools is absent.

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 indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context about polling semantics (e.g., whether to poll repeatedly, expected latency, or when to prefer wait_stream_hint or submit_goal workflows). No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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