get_job_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It doesn't mention whether the tool is destructive (it's not, but this is unstated), whether it blocks/polls, what the output format is (though output schema exists), or any rate limits or authentication needs. The simple description is incomplete for an agent to understand operational behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the core purpose. A score of 5 would require even tighter wording or additional value, but 4 is appropriate for brevity.

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 this is a low-complexity tool (1 param, has output schema), the description is incomplete. The output schema exists but the description doesn't clarify what statuses to expect or how to interpret them (e.g., pending, completed, failed). An agent needs more context to effectively parse the result. The description lacks completeness for a useful tool 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%, meaning the description must compensate. However, with only one parameter (job_id), the description implies the job_id is the identifier for the queued job, which adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema. The baseline is 3 given low coverage, but the description doesn't explain the format or constraints of job_id (e.g., required length, prefix).

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 verb ('Check status') and resource ('a previously queued job'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on job status, not system status, scanning, or diagnostics. A score of 5 would require explicit comparison to siblings or mention of what makes this unique, but 4 is strong.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., that a job must have been queued first via another tool) or mention when not to use it. With siblings like 'run_security_tool' and 'diagnose_issue', an agent would benefit from knowing this tool is for polling asynchronous operations.

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