upres_get_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the whole behavioral burden. It states that the tool retrieves status and result_url, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not mention error behavior, whether the job must be finished, or if it can be polled repeatedly. The core behavior is clear, but deeper transparency is missing.

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 one short sentence with no filler. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and every word earns its place. It is an exemplary concise definition for a simple tool.

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?

For a one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description names the two return fields (status, result_url) and the input, which is mostly sufficient. It could enrich the context by mentioning that status may be pending or completed, but that is inferable and minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter job_id is fully described in the schema as a UUID from an upscale tool. The description merely repeats 'by id' and adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, 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 ('Get'), a concrete resource ('status and result_url of an UpRes job'), and an identifier ('by id'). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools that manage models, credits, or submit upscale jobs, so an agent can separate it without opening the schema.

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 does not explicitly state when to call this tool as opposed to the upscaling tools; it only implies use after a job is created. The schema parameter description says the job_id comes from an upscale tool, but that is in the schema, not the description. There is no when-to-use or exclusions, only an implied context.

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