job_status

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

With no annotations, the description must bear the transparency burden. It does disclose what the tool reports and notes the conditional result field for finished jobs, but it does not explicitly state that the call is non-mutating, non-blocking, or what happens for unknown jobs.

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 compact and efficiently lists the key return categories without filler. Minor structural issue: it is a noun phrase rather than a complete verb-led sentence.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the lack of return-value detail is acceptable, and the essentials for invoking with job_id are present. However, the tool lacks usage context and behavioral caveats, leaving an agent to infer how this relates to wait_job and job_log.

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 needs to compensate, but it only implies job_id through 'of a job'. It does not explain the expected format, where to find the ID, or any constraints beyond the schema's generic string type.

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 identifies a specific resource (a job) and lists the exact information returned: current status, last activity, files touched, and result when finished. It is clear enough to separate from list_jobs or wait_job, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'Gets' or 'Returns'.

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 call this instead of siblings such as wait_job or job_log. The 'if finished' caveat is the only hint about polling behavior; there is no explicit context for choosing this tool over alternatives.

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