Get background job status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds genuine behavioral context: that arrange_plate and auto_orient run async and that a mid-move read produces a wrong layout. That is useful state-machine knowledge not present in the annotations. It stops short of naming the possible status values or the return shape, which matters because there is no output schema.

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 core condition ('wait for idle before reading positions or slicing') is front-loaded, and the second paragraph reinforces the same rule with the reason. The standalone 'Read-only.' line duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation and is the one sentence that does not earn its place.

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 zero-parameter poller whose annotations cover safety, the description supplies the missing piece an agent needs: the sequencing rule relative to the job-starting siblings and the consequence of violating it. Since there is no output schema, a hint at returned values would be nice, but the actionable instruction is 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. The description correctly implies a global, unfiltered status query rather than a per-job lookup.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Check whether arranging or orienting is still running') and explicitly ties the tool to the async jobs started by arrange_plate and auto_orient. An agent can distinguish this poller from the job-starting siblings without opening a schema.

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?

It gives an explicit when-to-use rule: poll this until it reports idle before reading object positions or slicing, so you act on a settled layout. It also implies the alternative (start the job with arrange_plate/auto_orient, then come here), which is real routing guidance rather than vague context.

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