get_job_status

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

No annotations are given, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'get status and result' but does not clarify whether it is read-only, if it returns immediately or blocks, or what the response structure is. This leaves the agent guessing about side effects and output details.

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 no unnecessary words; it is concise and to the point.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate to invoke it. However, it lacks details about the return format and behavior (e.g., whether it polls or returns cached status), which would help the agent use it effectively.

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% with one parameter 'jobId' described as 'The media job ID...'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'status and result of a media job by its ID', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'list_jobs' (multiple jobs) and 'generate_*' (creating jobs).

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 usage is clear: call with a job ID to get its status. However, no explicit exclusions or alternatives are provided; the context of sibling tools implies when to use this vs. 'wait_for_job' or 'list_jobs'.

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