render_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It details returned fields (frames done, queued chunks, ETA, artifacts, warnings, error/log tail), which is useful, but it never states that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention permissions, rate limits, or idempotency.

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 tightly packed sentences front-load the purpose, then list the exact return fields, and close with a routing tip. Every phrase earns its place and there is no filler.

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 the description does not need to explain return values (though it does helpfully enumerate them). The main gap is the unexplained job_id parameter, which an agent must still infer from context or prior tool calls.

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?

There is one required parameter (job_id) with 0% schema description coverage. The description never mentions job_id, its expected format, or where to obtain it, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 states a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('a JANCTION render job'), then enumerates the exact status fields returned. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling 'render_download' by saying to use that only once status is done.

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?

It gives an explicit alternative and condition: 'Use render_download once status is done.' However, it does not state when not to use this tool or clarify its relationship to other status-like siblings (e.g., render_info).

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