Get publish job status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description's 'never edits drawings or output files' reinforces this but adds only slightly more concreteness by naming the specific resources that are not modified. No new behavioral traits such as auth requirements or failure modes are disclosed.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action and a safety guarantee. It contains no fluff or redundant filler, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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?

This is a simple read-status tool with two well-documented parameters, a rich output schema, and annotations covering safety and idempotency. The description sufficiently conveys what the tool does; the only minor gap is that it does not detail what statuses are returned, but the output schema likely covers that.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both plan_id and timeout_ms, so the schema fully explains the parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, making the baseline 3 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 uses a specific verb 'Read' with a clear resource 'queued publish job state', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_publish_batch_status and read_publish_receipt. It also adds a safety clause 'never edits drawings or output files' that clarifies the tool's side-effect-free nature.

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 provides clear context that this tool is for reading the state of a queued publish job, which implies when it should be used. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using get_publish_batch_status for batch-level status, so it lacks explicit differentiators.

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