Background job status

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, but the description adds genuine value by disclosing what the response contains, including failure events like 'link lost' and a summary once the job ends. It says nothing about behavior for an unknown/invalid job identifier or whether it blocks on a running job.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose and the default behavior, with the return-field enumeration packed into a compact colon list. The '(link lost ...)' ellipsis is slightly loose but overall there is no wasted wording.

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 read-only, single-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description does a fair job of sketching the returned state, which substitutes for a missing output schema. However, the undefined 'job' parameter and the absent differentiation from sibling status tools leave clear gaps.

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 single 'job' parameter has no description in the schema. The parenthetical '(default: the latest)' hints at omission semantics but does not explain what the parameter accepts (ID vs name vs index) or how to obtain it, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 gives a specific verb-and-resource ('State of a log or sequence job') and even enumerates the returned content (running, started event, last sample/step, events, summary), so the agent knows this is a read of job progress. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'status' or 'output' tools, which keeps it from 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?

The only usage hint is '(default: the latest)', which describes omission behavior rather than when to choose this tool. There is no guidance tying it to log_start/sequence_start/job_stop or clarifying how it differs from the sibling 'status' tool.

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