get_job_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating no side effects. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., whether the job is blocking, what happens if job_id is invalid). While consistent with annotations, it does not provide additional value beyond them.

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 that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. It is appropriately concise for a simple query tool, though it could benefit from minimal additional details about the parameter.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description omits essential context such as return value format, possible status values, and error cases. This undermines an agent's ability to use the tool correctly, especially when integrating with siblings like list_jobs.

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?

The description fails to explain the job_id parameter's meaning or format. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by clarifying how to obtain job_id (e.g., from list_jobs) or what format it expects (e.g., GUID). It does not, leaving the agent without necessary context.

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 clearly states it retrieves the status of a background job, listing common job types (Install/Build/Test/Import/Export/Method). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_build_result or get_test_results, as it is a generic status checker for any background 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?

The description implies usage for checking job status but does not explicitly contrast with similar tools such as get_build_result, get_test_results, or read_job_output. It lacks guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names.

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