check_job_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the genuinely useful behavior that an omitted jobId turns this into a recent-jobs listing. It still says nothing about returned status values, terminal states, or whether polling is throttled.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the primary use case is front-loaded before the optional list mode. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description could say more about the shape of a status response (e.g., pending/running/done fields), but for a single-optional-parameter polling tool with annotations covering safety, what is present is close to sufficient.

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 100% and the description restates the jobId semantics almost verbatim from the schema ('omitted to list recent jobs'). The only added nuance is that the id came from an async call with status 'pending', which is marginal beyond structured data.

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?

Specific verb (poll) plus resource (status of a background job), with the exact originating tools named (build_project, deploy_all, deploy_solution, lse_project). An agent can distinguish this from unrelated siblings like control_plc or plc_values without opening the schema.

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?

Gives a clear trigger condition — only jobs started with async: true — and states that omitting jobId switches the tool into list-recent-jobs mode. It does not spell out a when-not case or name a competing status tool, so it falls just short of a full 5.

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