job_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description itself discloses key behaviors: it returns a status, structured result (e.g., parsed compiler errors), and output tail. This goes beyond a simple 'get status' and gives the agent useful expectations about the response content. It does not mention side effects, but the 'Get' verb implies 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?

The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every phrase adds value: status values, structured result example, and output tail. There is no redundant or vague wording.

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 low complexity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential aspects: what it returns (status, structured result, output tail). It could be more complete by explaining behavior for invalid job IDs or how structured results vary, but for a simple status check, it is sufficiently comprehensive.

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 50%; only include_output has a description in the schema. The description does not explain the required job_id parameter (format, how to obtain it), which is a significant gap. It mentions 'structured result' and 'output tail' but does not tie these to the parameters, leaving the main parameter's semantics under-specified.

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' with a clear resource 'background job's status' and enumerates possible statuses ('running/succeeded/failed/cancelled'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like job_list and job_cancel by specifying it retrieves the status of a single job, including structured results and output tail.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need the status of a background job, including structured results or output tail. While it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, the context is clear, and the distinction from job_list (list jobs) and job_cancel (cancel job) is evident.

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