design_job_status

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral weight. It does disclose a non-obvious trait — a blank job_id returns all jobs — which is real added value. But it says nothing about whether the call blocks, what happens for an unknown/expired job_id, whether the all-jobs listing is paginated, or that this is a read-only operation.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the primary behavior and followed by the conditional edge case. Nothing is wasted and nothing needs reordering.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the parameter is covered. However, for a job-lifecycle tool sitting alongside design_job_start and design_job_result, the description omits the lifecycle relationship (start → poll status → fetch result), which is the main gap an agent would need filled.

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 single parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate — and it does, defining job_id's semantics precisely (empty/blank → list all jobs). It doesn't state the id format or where to obtain a job_id (presumably from design_job_start), which keeps it below a 5.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Status of a background job', with the additional scope that a blank job_id returns all jobs. It implicitly contrasts with design_job_result (which fetches output) but never names that sibling, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the polling/lookup tool for jobs created by design_job_start and that design_job_result should be used to retrieve output, but the description never says so. No explicit 'use this when' or exclusion is given.

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