job_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a non-blocking read (polling), which is useful, but says nothing about terminal states, error behavior for an unknown job_id, polling cadence, or whether it is read-only. For a job-status tool this is thin.

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 short sentence with no filler, which is well front-loaded. But it is sparse to the point of under-specification rather than genuinely efficient communication.

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 values need not be described, but the missing parameter semantics and polling mechanics (frequency, terminal states, failure modes) leave real gaps for a tool whose whole purpose is repeated invocation.

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 0% and the single parameter job_id has no description in either the schema or the description text. The agent gets no format, source, or validity information for the required argument.

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 names a plausible verb+resource ("Poll a meshing job") and hints at asynchronous behavior with "without waiting for the native mesher." However, it does not clearly differentiate from job_cancel or explain what a poll returns, leaving the purpose only partially pinned down.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance: it never says whether to call this after mesh_generate, how often to poll, or when to switch to job_cancel. The only hint is the implicit contrast with blocking on the native mesher.

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