job_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: status is persistent (durable across reads) and the log is a bounded tail rather than a full log. It does not say what states can be returned, whether results are absent until completion, or whether the call blocks, which a job-status reader should disclose.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The resource list is ordered by likely importance (status, progress, results, logs), and nothing is repeated or wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is unnecessary, and the safety annotations cover side effects. However, with zero schema description coverage on the parameters and no statement about job lifecycle states, the definition is only minimally sufficient for correct 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 carries the full burden for two parameters. 'Bounded worker log tail' hints that one parameter controls log extent, and 'persistent status' implies the other identifies a job, but neither job_id nor log_lines is described, and the meaning of log_lines=0 is left unstated.

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 uses a specific verb and enumerates the exact resources returned: persistent status, progress, results, and a worker log tail. An agent can tell this is the per-job inspection tool rather than the listing tool. It stops short of naming a sibling such as list_jobs for differentiation, so it is not a 5.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is mentioned or ruled out. The only implicit signal is 'persistent', which hints at polling a durable job record after submission, but the agent must infer that on its own.

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