get_job_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does well: it discloses the async nature, the status enum, the recommended polling interval, that the result carries a job outcome JSON, and that chainStatus tracks on-chain finalization independently. Some details like error behavior or timeouts are omitted, so a 4 is fitting.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and statuses, followed by actionable polling guidance. No wasted words; every clause contributes necessary behavioral or workflow information.

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 tool's simplicity (2 fully-described parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers essential aspects: why to use it, the status model, how to poll, and what the result contains. It lacks only minor details like error handling or timeout guidance, which are not critical for basic usage.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already described in the schema. The description adds minor context (jobId comes from submit actions, sessionId belongs to the job) but does not significantly exceed schema semantics. Baseline 3 applies.

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 polls the status of an async NIGHTGATE job, with a specific verb (poll) and resource (job status). It also lists all possible statuses, which unambiguously defines its scope and distinguishes it from sibling tools that verify or attest.

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?

It explicitly says to use this after submit actions and provides a polling loop ('Poll every few seconds until succeeded or failed'). This is clear context, though it doesn't mention when not to use it or name alternatives; none of the siblings serve a polling role, so no exclusion is needed.

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