resolve_render_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds 'without changing jobs', which reinforces but does not add new behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Description is a single, concise sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose and non-destructive nature. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is adequate but lacks details about the return format or what status/progress information is provided. The output schema exists, so return values are documented elsewhere, but the description could be more complete.

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?

Input schema has one parameter (job_ids) with 0% schema description coverage, meaning the schema provides no textual description. The tool description also fails to explain the parameter's meaning, purpose, or expected format, leaving the agent without guidance on how to use it.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Inspect' and resource 'render queue records and authoritative status/progress', making purpose clear. It explicitly states non-modification ('without changing jobs'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like resolve_queue_render or resolve_configure_render.

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?

Description implies usage as a read-only inspection tool but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., resolve_queue_render for starting renders). No exclusions or usage conditions are provided.

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