job_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: this is a polling operation, and 'completed' only means counters reconcile with expectations. That is valuable for an agent deciding when to stop polling.

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 sentences, no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds essential polling behavior without redundancy.

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 a single parameter, read-only annotations, and an existing output schema, this description is complete for an agent to call the tool. It explains the polling use case and the definition of completion, leaving no critical gap.

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 schema offers no description for job_id, so the description carries the burden. It establishes that job_id refers to a background ingestion job started by ingest_directory, which is useful, but it does not explicitly say how to obtain or format the ID. It is adequate for a single obvious parameter but not fully explicit.

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 states a specific verb ('checks') and resource ('progress of a background ingestion job started by ingest_directory'). This clearly identifies what the tool does and naturally distinguishes it from ingestion and search siblings.

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 explicitly says to use this for polling a long-running bulk ingest rather than assuming completion, and explains the completion condition. It does not list explicit alternative tools, but the 'started by ingest_directory' framing gives clear contextual guidance.

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