codebase_get_job_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that the tool internally waits up to 50s per request, warns against premature failure assumptions, and asserts a strict rule about not finishing responses during polling. This goes well beyond a generic 'get status' description.

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 front-loaded with a bold, clear purpose statement, followed by compact actionable instructions. Every sentence adds value—polling requirement, 50s wait, terminal status, and the prohibition on premature response—with no redundancy or fluff.

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 single-parameter status polling tool with an output schema, the description fully covers purpose, usage, and behavioral constraints. It explains the relationship to the sibling job-starting tools and defines the polling loop, making it complete for agent 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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter (job_id), including its source and type. The description does not add further parameter-specific detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Get async analysis job status' and specifically names both job-starting tools (`codebase_start_job_related_files_search` and `codebase_start_job_analysis`), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishing it from siblings that start jobs or get results.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit: 'You must poll using `codebase_get_job_status` tool until `success`/`failure`' and 'Avoid assuming failure before terminal status.' It also forbids finishing responses while polling, clearly defining when to use the tool and how to handle non-terminal states.

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