get_job_status

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true is consistent with the description. The description adds the behavioral context that the job is asynchronous, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose potential error conditions or what constitutes 'result' in more detail, so it provides only moderate added value beyond annotations.

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. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, containing no unnecessary words.

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 getter with one parameter, the description is adequate but not complete. It doesn't specify the format or structure of the returned status/result, and given a sibling 'get_job_output', it's unclear how they relate. No output schema exists to fill the gap.

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 only parameter, job_id, has no schema description (0% coverage). The description says 'by its ID', which clarifies that job_id refers to the identifier of an async job. This compensates for the missing schema information, though it is minimal.

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 function: retrieving the status and result of an async job by ID. The verb 'get' and the resource 'status and result of an async job' are specific. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tool 'get_job_output', which may also return results, so a small deduction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_jobs' or 'get_job_output'. The description implies usage when you have a job ID, but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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