Get Hedra Job Status

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

Although annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, the description adds substantial behavioral context: it is 'cheaper' for repeated polling, it only returns status/progress (not full outputs), and it instructs users to transition to hedra_get_job once terminal statuses are reached. It also discloses the return format and valid status values, which is beyond the annotations and truly enhances understanding.

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 well-structured with sections for Args, Returns, and Examples, front-loading the core purpose. Every sentence contributes value: cost comparison, usage guidance, and terminal-state transition. Despite covering multiple aspects, it remains tight and readable without redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple (one param, no output schema), but the description compensates for the missing output schema by explicitly listing the return fields and statuses. It covers cost, when to use, when not to use, and what to do after completion. It is fully self-contained for an agent to invoke correctly without external context.

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 schema already covers the single parameter job_id with a description providing format and source ('job_<uuid> — returned by hedra_submit_job'). The description repeats 'the job id from hedra_submit_job', adding no new semantic nuance. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; there is no additional meaning to extract.

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 'Lightweight poll of a job's current status and progress', clearly identifying the specific verb (poll) and resource (job status). It explicitly distinguishes itself from hedra_get_job ('cheaper than hedra_get_job') and implies a lighter operation, differentiating from the sibling that retrieves full results. This is a specific and unambiguous purpose statement.

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 description provides explicit usage instructions: 'Use when: manually polling a long-running job in a loop with your own delay' and 'Don't use when: you just want to wait for completion and get the result in one call (use hedra_wait_for_job instead)'. It also mentions timing relative to job completion ('Once status is COMPLETED or FAILED, call hedra_get_job'). This leaves no doubt about when to select this tool over alternatives.

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