kaiten_get_compute_job

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully documents the 'status' field values and explains that 'result' contains chart data only when status is 'done.' However, it does not describe failure details, error handling, or polling behavior, leaving moderate gaps.

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?

Three tight sentences, each earning its place. The main purpose is front-loaded, the usage context follows, and the response fields are summarized efficiently with no filler.

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 one-parameter polling tool, the description is nearly complete: it explains the job_id origin, the statuses, and the result semantics despite lacking an output schema. The only minor gap is not detailing what happens when status is 'failed' (e.g., error message format).

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 single parameter job_id is already described in the schema as 'Compute job ID returned by an async chart tool,' achieving 100% coverage. The description adds a little workflow context but does not materially expand parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 specific action ('Get the status and result of an asynchronous compute job') and distinguishes this from the chart-request and cancel siblings by framing it as the polling counterpart. An agent can immediately identify this as the retrieval tool for async job outcomes.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use the tool: 'Use this to poll for results after requesting an async chart.' It provides clear context for the polling workflow, though it does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions beyond the implied chart tool relationship.

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