gsc_job_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does this admirably by enumerating all possible states, explaining the meaning of `results` and `live`, detailing `stop_reason` values, and even covering the edge case of a run refused at the gate with empty `results` and `error`. This is rich, exact, and goes far beyond what a simple status check would imply.

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 concise but packed with useful information: a clear opening statement, a list of states, definitions of key fields, and an edge case explanation. Each sentence contributes meaning, and the structure is logical. It is not overly verbose, though the density of terms might require careful reading.

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 lack of an output schema, the description explains the meaningful return fields (`results`, `live`, `stop_reason`) and provides context on how to interpret them. It covers common states and the special case of a gated run. However, it does not describe error handling, timeouts, or how to distinguish between a yet-to-start job and a failed one, leaving some gaps for a complete operational picture.

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 input schema has one optional parameter `job_id` with default null, but the schema description coverage is 0%. The description compensates partially by stating that the tool returns progress for 'one submission job, or the most recent one', implying that omitting job_id selects the most recent. However, it never explicitly names `job_id` or explains the parameter's format or null behavior, leaving ambiguity for the agent.

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's purpose: 'Progress and state for one submission job, or the most recent one.' It names the resource and the kind of information returned (progress, state), making it easy to understand. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar sibling tools like gsc_check_status, which could also be interpreted as a status check.

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 usage context is implied: you use this tool to inspect the progress or state of a submission job. It does not provide explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance, nor does it mention alternatives like gsc_check_status. The presence of optional job_id suggests checking a specific job or the most recent, but no explicit conditions are stated.

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