check_job

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'check the status' but does not clarify whether the call blocks, what statuses are possible, whether it has side effects, or what happens if the job_id is invalid. This is a significant transparency gap for a polling tool.

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 extremely concise, using two sentences to convey the purpose and the parameter origin. It is well-structured with a clear 'Args' section, front-loaded with the main verb. Every word earns its place.

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 tool, this is minimally viable but has gaps. It tells what it does and where the parameter comes from, but it does not describe the possible return statuses or how an agent should interpret the result. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need to explain return structure, but the absence of lifecycle context makes it harder to use 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 schema has no description for 'job_id' (0% coverage), so the description's explanation is essential. It adds meaning by specifying that the job_id comes from hire_agent, which directly helps an agent understand how to obtain it. This is adequate for a single parameter, though more detail on format or examples would elevate it.

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 tool's function: 'Check the status of a background agent job.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing hire_agent, which is the tool that returns the job_id. This is specific and actionable, though it could more explicitly contrast with list_agents or other tools.

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 implies when to use the tool by noting the job_id is 'returned by hire_agent for long-running agents.' This gives clear context for its use. However, it does not state exclusions or explicitly recommend it over alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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