get_job_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful content beyond that: it specifies the exact return payload and that spool inventory is opt-in, which tells the agent the call is cheap by default.

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?

Two short sentences with the primary payload front-loaded and the optional behavior trailing. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values, and it does so by enumerating status, return code, failure indicator, and optional spool inventory. It stops short of noting not-found behavior or how the failure indicator should be interpreted, which keeps it off a 5.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The phrase 'optionally includes spool file inventory' loosely restates the includeSpoolSummary schema text but adds no format or interaction detail beyond it, and jobName/environment are untouched in the description.

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 uses a specific verb (get) plus resource (job status) and names the concrete fields returned: status, return code, failure indicator. This differentiates it implicitly from siblings like get_job_output or list_jobs, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Naming 'a specific job' implies this is the per-job lookup rather than a listing, so usage is inferable. But there is no statement of when to prefer this over get_job_output or analyze_job_failure, and no prerequisites mentioned.

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