ssh_job_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys that this is a read/query operation returning status codes and execution info, but says nothing about polling behavior, freshness of the data, permission requirements, or behavior when the job no longer exists.

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, front-loaded sentence listing exactly what is returned. No wasted words, though it is terse enough that it leaves behavioral questions unanswered.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of naming the return values (liveness, exit code, execution info), which is the key thing an agent needs. Remaining gaps (error behavior, staleness) are minor for a simple status-query 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 100% with only 2 parameters (jobId, connectionId), both documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter formats or defaults, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb (查询) with a clearly scoped resource (远程脱机后台作业) and enumerates the returned data (存活状态、退出码、执行信息). This distinguishes it from siblings like ssh_job_logs, ssh_job_start, and ssh_job_kill, though the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 purpose implies when the tool is useful (checking on a background job), but it never explicitly says when to use this versus ssh_job_logs for output or ssh_job_kill for termination. Usage is left to inference.

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