job_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a good job: it discloses the returned payload (running/finished with exit code, log tail, Tailscale login URL when authorization is pending) and the connection strategy (Tailscale inventory address first, then public bootstrap address). It does not mention permission or auth requirements, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the fallback and no-argument behaviors appended in order of relevance. Every clause adds usable information.

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 two-parameter status tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers purpose, return contents, fallback addressing, and the no-jobId mode. The only meaningful hole is the semantics of the 'lines' parameter, which the agent must guess from 'the log tail'.

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%, so the description must compensate. It fully explains jobId, including the distinct no-jobId listing behavior, but never mentions the 'lines' parameter that controls how much log tail is returned, leaving one of two parameters undocumented.

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 resource and verb-equivalent ('State of a detached remote job') and scopes it to a concrete job type, node_bootstrap, which helps the agent separate it from the start-a-job sibling. It does not explicitly contrast itself with other status tools such as fleet_status, so it stops short of a 5.

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 conditional 'Without jobId: lists known jobs' gives an implied mode-selection rule, which is genuinely useful. However there is no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to node_bootstrap (which presumably launches the job this tool monitors) or any other status sibling, so usage is inferred rather than stated.

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