tool_job_status

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

The annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful content about what is returned (manifest, outputs, log tails), with 'tails' hinting that logs are truncated, but says nothing about job lifecycle states or readiness.

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?

A single tightly worded sentence that front-loads the verb and enumerates the returned artifacts with zero filler. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than over-long.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description partially compensates by naming the three returned artifacts. However, it omits how job_id is obtained, whether the job must be finished, and any notion of job status states, leaving real gaps for a status/monitoring tool.

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% for the single job_id parameter, so the description is expected to compensate, and it does not explain the id's format or origin. The parameter is nearly self-evident from its name, which keeps this from dropping lower.

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 ('Read') and resource ('a converter job's manifest, outputs and log tails'), so the agent knows exactly what data it retrieves. It is distinguishable from prepare_tool_job/run_tool_job by name, but it never names or contrasts with those siblings explicitly.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., that a job_id must come from prepare_tool_job or run_tool_job), and no alternatives. Usage is only inferable from the word 'status' and the sibling naming convention.

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