job_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden but does disclose that the tool returns bounded structured output, findings, and streaming events, which is meaningful behavioral context. However, it does not explain streaming/pagination semantics, authorization needs, what happens when job_id is null, or how cursor_seq controls retrieval.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted framing, clearly leading with the core action. It could be slightly clearer by separating the retrieval modes, but it remains appropriately compact.

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 need not detail return values, and it does mention the main result categories. Still, for a status tool with three optional parameters and no annotations, it leaves important invocation details unclear, especially engagement_id, null job_id behavior, and cursor semantics.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, but it only repeats job_id and cursor without explaining formats, defaults, optionality, or the purpose of cursor_seq. It entirely omits engagement_id, leaving a third of the parameters undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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-resource pair: querying job status by job_id and cursor, plus structured output, findings, and streaming events. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like job_start and job_cancel, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase 'by job_id and cursor' and by the tool name job_status. There is no explicit guidance on when to poll, when to use job_start or job_cancel instead, or how this differs from system_status.

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