godot_job

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

Annotations already provide the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: the tool returns status first, then result or error once finished. This goes beyond the schema and annotations, though it leaves polling semantics implicit.

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 short, dense sentences lead with the action and then describe the result behavior. There is no filler or redundancy; every word contributes.

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, read-only tool with robust annotations, the description covers what it checks and what it returns. It does not detail status formats or polling behavior, but that is not essential for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 fully documented in the schema ('The job_id returned by godot_call'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description reinforces the linkage to godot_call but does not add new parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 operation ('Check'), the resource ('an async job'), and the originating call ('godot_call with async:true'). This separates it from sibling tools like godot_call and godot_execute without ambiguity.

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 gives a clear trigger for using this tool: after starting an async job with godot_call's async:true. It does not explicitly list exclusion cases or name alternatives, but the intended usage context is unmistakable.

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