soundmagic_status

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description reveals an important behavioral detail: it neither wakes the GPU nor extends the warm timeout. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious side-effect disclosure that helps an agent reason about safe invocation.

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 short sentences deliver the core purpose and the most critical behavioral nuance with no filler. The content is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 simple, optional-parameter read tool, the description is largely complete: it states what is read and important non-effects. It does not specify return values or the exact meaning of null, but the tool's simplicity and the annotation coverage keep this from being a major gap.

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 description does not explain the job_id parameter, including what null means or how it distinguishes job state from worker state. The phrase 'job or worker state' hints at the parameter's role, but this is too ambiguous for a tool with no other parameter 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 uses a specific verb ('Read') with a clear resource ('a job or worker state'), which immediately distinguishes it from mutating siblings like submit, cancel, and release. The scope is concrete and unambiguous.

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 useful context for when to use this tool: it is safe to check state without affecting the GPU or warm timeout. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the read-only framing and non-effect warning give clear practical guidance.

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