bitpull_site_job

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, so the description only needs to add context, and it does disclose the shape of the payload: lines plus a result containing an address, variables, and a claim link. It says nothing about terminal vs in-progress states, whether the result is populated before completion, or failure statuses.

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 compact sentence with no filler, and the payload contents are front-loaded adequately. The phrasing "Progress of a publication or of a database being created" is slightly awkward and buries the actual operation behind the return-value summary.

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?

With no output schema, the description does bear responsibility for explaining the return value, and it sketches the result fields reasonably well. But for a read-only polling-style tool it omits the id's referent, status semantics, and what an incomplete job returns, so it is only partly complete.

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%, so the description carries the full burden of explaining the single id parameter, and it does not. It never says whether the id is a job id, a site id, or a database id, nor what happens if a valid-but-unrelated UUID is supplied.

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 conveys that this returns progress information for an in-flight publication or database-creation operation, including lines and a result object. But it never states a clear verb+resource pairing (e.g. "get job status by id") and gives no clue how it differs from the sibling tools job_status or run_job, leaving the agent to guess at its role.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusion of alternatives, and no mention of the preconditions for calling it (e.g. that a publication or claim must already have been started). With job_status and run_job in the sibling set, the absence of any routing language is a real gap.

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