Poll a re-layout job

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses the possible statuses (pending/done/failed), the conditions for including re-laid XML and warnings/score, and that it is free. This adds meaningful behavioral context though it doesn't mention error handling or polling intervals.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every phrase adds value. It efficiently covers what the tool does, outcomes, and a billing note without padding.

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?

For a simple polling tool with read-only annotations and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the typical statuses and data returned when complete. It does not mention potential errors or caveats, but the scope is small and the essentials are present.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters (job_id and diagram_id) with clear descriptions, and schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds little beyond referencing job_id as returned by relayout_diagram, so the schema carries the burden.

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's purpose: checking the status of an async re-layout job started by relayout_diagram. It specifies the resource (re-layout job) and the action (check status), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_diagram or relayout_diagram.

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 implies clear usage: use this tool after starting a re-layout with relayout_diagram, passing the returned job_id. It does not explicitly list when not to use it, but the context is unmistakable and adequate for selection.

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