Get background job status

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already covers safety. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining that it returns the idle status of the plate job worker, which is beyond what the annotation conveys. No contradictions.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose, adds a usage hint in parentheses, and includes a brief hardware note. Every word contributes; there is no fluff.

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 no-parameter, read-only status tool, the description fully covers what it does and when to use it. The return type ('whether...idle') is implicit, and the lack of an output schema is acceptable. The note '[needs M4b]' adds relevant prerequisite context.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and the schema is trivially empty. No additional semantics required.

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 the tool checks 'Whether the plate job worker is idle', identifying both the specific resource (plate job worker) and the action (status check). It distinguishes from siblings like get_slice_status by focusing on plate jobs, and the poll-after usage adds clarity.

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 explicitly states when to use it: 'poll after arrange_plate/auto_orient'. This is a clear contextual trigger, though it doesn't mention alternative tools or when not to use it. Given the simplicity of the tool, this guidance is sufficient.

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