get_sdg_job_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. 'Read' clearly signals a non-mutating operation, and 'progress, lifecycle state, cleanup read-back' adds context about what is returned. However, it does not clarify what 'bounded' means, error behavior, or whether authorization or job ownership is required.

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 with an active verb and no filler. It is compact and front-loaded, though 'bounded' and 'cleanup read-back' are somewhat jargon-heavy.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values are covered elsewhere. But the tool has three parameters with zero schema documentation, no annotation coverage, and no usage guidance against sibling tools. The description is too thin to fully support correct 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%, so the description must compensate. It implies job_id refers to an SDG job, but command_id and idempotency_key are not explained at all. The description adds almost no meaning beyond the parameter names.

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 the specific verb 'Read' and names the resource: SDG job progress, lifecycle state, and cleanup read-back. This clearly distinguishes it from general job status tools and other SDG-manipulation tools, though the word 'bounded' is slightly ambiguous.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_job_status, get_sdg_manifest, or after create/start/cancel operations. There are no conditions, exclusions, or mentions of prerequisites.

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