Check a background job

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

Annotations only carry openWorldHint=false, so the description bears most of the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the wait/poll loop and the Enter-injection behavior, but never mentions the stop parameter, which is a mutating capability documented only in the schema — a meaningful omission for a tool with no readOnly/destructive hints.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the optional modes and the no-id fallback. No filler or repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly characterizes the return ('status and recent output'), and the full schema covers parameter details including the 45-second cap. The only real gap is the undocumented stop capability, which the schema does at least cover.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds real meaning: it explains that id is optional and that omitting it lists all jobs, and it frames waitSeconds as 'wait for it to finish' rather than just a timeout — details not spelled out in 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the status and recent output of a login or publish job') and ties the tool to the job-producing siblings (login, publish_package, setup_trusted_publishing via the schema). The no-id listing behavior further pins down what the tool actually does, so an agent can distinguish it from watch_workflow or inspect_package.

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?

Gives clear context for the three usage modes: poll status, wait for completion with waitSeconds, or send Enter. It does not name an explicit alternative tool or state when not to use it (e.g., versus watch_workflow for CI runs), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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