get_job_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: not the possible status values, whether the call blocks, what happens for an unknown or expired job_id, or any rate limits on polling. Four characters against zero annotation coverage is a serious gap for a polling endpoint.

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?

Short, but short here reflects under-specification rather than economy; there is no front-loaded statement of what is returned or when to call. Brevity without required content does not earn conciseness credit.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is the only channel for this tool's semantics and it supplies none of them. An agent cannot tell what a successful response looks like or how to terminate a polling loop.

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 explain job_id, and it does not — no format, no source (returned by which sibling), no error behavior for a missing job. The single required parameter is left entirely to inference from its name.

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?

"輪詢 job" names a verb (poll) and a resource (job), which is enough to know this retrieves status for an asynchronous job. However it adds nothing beyond the tool name get_job_status and does not differentiate it from any sibling, nor explain what a "job" refers to in this server.

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 guidance on when to call this, how often to poll, whether to poll until a terminal state, or which sibling created the job in the first place. The word "輪詢" implies repetition but gives no interval, backoff, or termination condition.

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