Get a brand mockup job

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Read-only' and 'Requires kits:read', which conveys the safety profile and auth requirement. It also enumerates return fields (status, completed count, errors, result URLs), giving agents a clear picture of what to expect. It lacks details on error behavior or rate limits, but for a simple read operation this is adequate.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and return fields, followed by a terse note on read-only and permission. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or 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?

For a simple single-resource read tool, the description covers the essentials: what it does, what it returns, and its permissions. With no output schema, the description's mention of status, count, errors, and URLs compensates well. It could add context about typical usage after generate_mockups, but the parameter schema already provides that linkage, so the overall completion is strong.

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%, and both parameters have rich descriptions in the schema (jobId from generate_mockups or list_mockup_jobs; projectId from list_brand_projects). The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Poll') and resource ('one mockup job in its project'), clearly stating what it returns (status, completed count, errors, result URLs). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_mockup_jobs (lists many) and generate_mockups (creates jobs).

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 clear context on when to use this tool: to poll a single mockup job for status and results. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'Poll one mockup job' phrasing implies usage after job creation, and the read-only nature is stated. Missing an explicit contrast with list_mockup_jobs, but context is sufficient.

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