get_job_status

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a safe read operation, and the description adds that it returns both status and result. However, it says nothing about polling behavior, terminal states, or what happens if the job ID is unknown, which would be helpful for an async job-status 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?

One clear, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the operation.

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 tool this is close, but with no output schema the description should say more about what statuses or result payloads the caller receives. The lack of job_id guidance also leaves a practical gap.

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%, and the sole required parameter job_id is undocumented in both schema and description. The description does not explain the expected ID format, where to obtain it, or how invalid IDs are handled, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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?

States a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('current status and result') and scopes it to asynchronous plans or runs, which connects it to siblings like start_plan/start_run. It does not explicitly name how it differs from cancel_job, but the read-only status purpose is clear.

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?

Usage is implied by 'asynchronous plan or run' — call this after starting one of those jobs — but there are no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool instructions. It relies on the agent inferring the async polling context.

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