cadlens_get_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the return values (PENDING, PROCESSING, COMPLETED, FAILED). The read-only nature is clear from 'Check', and the tool's behavior is predictable. It lacks explicit mention of error handling or polling implications, but this is minor for such a simple status endpoint.

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 sentences, directly states the action and the possible return values, with no wasted words. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what statuses can be returned, which is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role in the parse workflow.

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 provides complete coverage for job_id, including its source ('returned by parse_file/parse_url'), so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. The baseline of 3 applies since the schema already documents the parameter fully.

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 identifies the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('status of a CAD parse job'), and it distinguishes from siblings by listing the exact status values returned. It is immediately obvious this tool is for status polling, not for results or management.

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 implies the usage context by referencing job_id from parse_file/parse_url, reinforcing the expected flow. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like list_jobs or get_result, so the agent must infer when to choose this tool over siblings.

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