GetJobStatus

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While '获取' (get) implies a read operation, the description doesn't specify whether this is a safe, idempotent query or if it has side effects. It also doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what the response format might be (since there's no output schema). For a status-checking tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, efficient phrase ('获取异步API运行状态') that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple status-checking tool and is front-loaded with the essential 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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what status information is returned (e.g., progress percentage, success/failure, error messages), how to interpret results, or any behavioral nuances. For a tool that retrieves operation status—which could involve complex states—this minimal description leaves significant gaps for the agent to navigate.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the JobId parameter clearly documented as '调用异步API后返回的任务ID' (task ID returned after calling an asynchronous API). The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the description neither compensates for gaps nor adds extra value.

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 '获取异步API运行状态' clearly states the purpose as retrieving the status of an asynchronous API operation. It uses a specific verb ('获取' meaning 'get') and resource ('异步API运行状态' meaning 'asynchronous API operation status'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetTaskInstance' or 'GetWorkflowInstance' that might also retrieve status information for different resource types.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., that a JobId must be obtained from a previous async API call), nor does it distinguish this tool from other status-checking tools in the sibling list like 'GetTaskInstance' or 'GetWorkflowInstance'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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