skypilot_job_status

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds the meaningful default-behavior disclosure (omitted job_ids returns the latest job). It does not mention behavior when the cluster doesn't exist, job not found, or authentication requirements.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the primary action front-loaded and the default-behavior caveat following. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description covers the optional-parameter fallback, giving most of what an agent needs; only error/precondition behavior for the required cluster_name is missing.

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 carry parameter meaning. It explains the optional job_ids behavior well (defaults to latest job) but says nothing about the required cluster_name or what forms a job_id takes. Partial compensation, not full.

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 of specific jobs on a cluster'), which distinguishes it from skypilot_cluster_status (cluster-level). However, it does not differentiate from the closely-named sibling skypilot_job_queue, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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 fallback rule ('if no job_ids provided, returns the status of the latest job') gives useful invocation context, but there is no guidance on when to prefer this over skypilot_job_queue or skypilot_job_logs, and no stated prerequisites.

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