ppt_get_job_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns status, stage, progress, and errors, providing useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention idempotency, safety, or behavior for invalid/unknown job IDs, which is a gap for a tool likely used in polling.

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 concise sentence with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action and lists the key return fields efficiently.

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 with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It specifies what will be returned. It could mention polling behavior or that it is read-only, but the tool name and sibling context imply this.

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 description does not explain the 'job_id' parameter beyond the schema's field name and type. Since the description adds no meaning about how to obtain or format the job ID, it fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get the current status, stage, progress, and errors for a job.' This clearly defines the tool's function and distinguishes it from siblings like ppt_cancel_job, ppt_list_jobs, and ppt_get_job_artifacts.

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 usage for checking job status but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention exclusions. For example, it does not contrast with ppt_list_jobs or explain that it is for a single job's detailed status.

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