sigma_get_materialization_job

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds no context beyond the tool name, such as job state semantics, error conditions, or that it may be used for polling. Thus it provides minimal additional behavioral transparency.

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 with no filler. It states the verb and object directly, making it very concise.

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 having an output schema and annotations, the description lacks context about the materialization lifecycle—how jobs are created, when to poll them, and what statuses might appear. This makes it incomplete for an agent to know when and why to invoke it.

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% for the two required parameters. The description does not compensate by explaining what job_id and workbook_id refer to or how they relate to a materialization job. Parameter meanings must be inferred solely from names.

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 a specific verb ('check') and resource ('status of a materialization job'), clearly indicating a read operation. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling materialization tools like sigma_materialize_element or sigma_materialize_and_wait, but the intent is unambiguous.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used after creating a materialization job, nor does it reference polling patterns or alternatives like sigma_materialize_and_wait.

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