remote_job_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read-only operation and 'current state' implies polling, but it does not disclose whether the call blocks, returns cached data, or how states are represented. No side effects or required permissions are mentioned.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that directly conveys the core purpose. It contains no filler or redundant content, earning its place efficiently.

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?

Despite the tool's low parameter count and the presence of an output schema, the description leaves important gaps: no mention of how job_id relates to other remote_job_* tools, no possible state values, no preconditions, and no alternative tool exclusions. It is minimally viable but under-specified for an agent navigating a large family of job tools.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining the job_id parameter. It does not do so; job_id is only listed in the schema with a title, and the description fails to clarify where to obtain it or what format it should take.

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 the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'current state of a long-running job', clearly identifying the tool's function. It distinguishes 'status' from sibling tools like remote_job_list, remote_job_start, and remote_job_cancel, though it does not explicitly contrast with remote_job_result.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as remote_job_result or remote_job_list. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer that it should be used when checking a job's live state.

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