render_status

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuine behavioral context: the enumerable status values, that eta.human includes queue wait, that Blender warnings and a log tail are surfaced on failure, and that omitting job_id switches to a listing mode.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the returned fields and then the usage/fallback modes; nothing is padding. The long field enumeration is justified but makes the second half slightly heavy.

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 documentation is not required, yet the description still sketches the response shape, covers the failure path and the no-argument listing path. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100% for the single job_id parameter, and the schema already documents its origin (j_.../b_...), key scoping, and the empty-string listing behavior. The description restates the empty case without adding new syntax or constraints, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Check a render job') and enumerates exactly what is reported: status enum values, frames done, ETA, files ready, warnings, error tail. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like render_download or render_estimate, which it names as the follow-up step.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('to report progress to the user'), what to do next ('call render_download once status is done'), and defines the no-argument case ('lists this key's recent jobs and the scene_ids still kept') including the motivating scenario of resuming work in a new conversation.

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