查看任务状态

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: monitoring relies on the worker process heartbeat and does not mistake the Windows wrapper PID for the OCR process. This is beyond what annotations provide.

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 sentence but dense with specific fields. It is not overly long and every phrase adds value, though it is somewhat of a list and could be structured more clearly.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema, the description need not explain return values. It covers the key returned fields and adds a subtle liveness detail. It lacks parameter explanation, but that is partially compensated by the schema and output schema.

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 mention either parameter (job_dir, stalled_after_seconds). It gives no guidance on required values, types, or semantics, leaving the agent without additional meaning beyond the raw 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?

The description clearly states it reads job status for book extraction tasks, listing specific metrics. It is a specific verb+resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_batch_status.

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 monitoring an active book extraction job, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The heartbeat-based monitoring note gives context but no direct comparison.

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