remote_job_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the bar is lower. The description adds only the notion that this targets jobs that are still running, saying nothing about whether status is terminal, whether the call blocks, or whether the job record expires — context an agent polling a job would want.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness is part of why parameter and usage detail are absent.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. Still missing is the origin of job_id and any hint about polling behavior or terminal states, which for a status-check tool is the one piece of guidance an agent genuinely needs.

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% and the single parameter job_id has no description at all, so the description must carry the burden of explaining it. It never states that job_id is the identifier returned by remote_job_start or what format it takes, leaving the only required argument semantically undefined.

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 names a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current state of a long-running job'), which is concrete enough to act on. It does not differentiate itself from close siblings such as remote_job_result or remote_job_list, so an agent must infer that 'state' means progress status rather than output or enumeration.

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 phrase 'long-running job' implicitly signals this is a polling tool to use after remote_job_start, and 'current state' weakly distinguishes it from remote_job_result. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of polling cadence or terminal states, and no named alternative for retrieving results.

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