job_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful semantic detail about return fields, especially next_retry_in_seconds rounding and null behavior, which goes beyond the structured annotations.

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 sentences are front-loaded with the primary purpose and then add targeted semantics for next_retry_in_seconds. No filler or 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, read-only, and has an output schema, so full return documentation is unnecessary. However, the missing job_id guidance and lack of differentiation from wait_for_job leave gaps for correct agent selection and invocation.

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 single required parameter (job_id) is not explained in the description. The name job_id implies an identifier, but the definition does not state where it comes from, what format it has, or whether it refers to a power-on/switch job specifically.

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 (查询) and names the resource (当前进程中的开机/切换任务) along with the fields returned. It distinguishes this status-query operation from write-oriented siblings like power_on and cancel_job, though it does not explicitly contrast with wait_for_job.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use job_status versus wait_for_job or cancel_job. The implied context is checking a job's current state, but no when/when-not or alternative routing is given.

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