get_job_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description is solely responsible for behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key behavior (returns {} when no job is running), which adds value. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what happens when a job is running (e.g., status fields), or any potential side effects or delays. This is minimal but non-contradictory.

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 two short sentences, front-loading the main action and including the key return behavior. It is concise with no filler, and the structure is easily scannable.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is still incomplete. It fails to define the 'slug' parameter, describe the return format when a job is running, or note any prerequisites (e.g., whether the job must already be initiated). The lack of annotations and output schema increases the burden on the description, which it does not meet.

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 has one required parameter 'slug' with no description, and the description does not explain what 'slug' refers to (e.g., the job's slug, book slug, etc.). With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate, but it provides zero parameter semantics. An agent cannot confidently know what value to provide.

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 clearly states the tool checks the status of a running preview/publish job and notes the empty return when no job is running. It names the specific resource ('job') and the action ('check status'), which is unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'wait_for_job', which is a closely related operation.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, it doesn't clarify whether this should be used for polling or snapshot checks, nor does it mention 'wait_for_job' for blocking behaviors. The usage context is entirely absent.

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