job_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is read-only (get status) and describes return content, but does not mention safety (idempotence), error conditions, authentication requirements, or polling behavior. The description is adequate but not highly transparent.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence defining the purpose, a docstring-style argument explanation, and a return description. No extraneous information, front-loaded with the verb-object structure. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool has only one parameter and no output schema, the description covers its purpose, input, and output adequately. It could mention that the tool is idempotent or safe to call repeatedly, but the current completeness suffices for a simple status retrieval tool.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must add value. It explains that 'job_id' comes from 'submit_job', which provides necessary context. However, it does not specify format, constraints, or required string patterns, leaving some ambiguity. The explanation is helpful but minimal.

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 states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'status of a queued or completed print job'. It specifies scope (queued or completed) and mentions return content (full job record including status, timing, and metadata), which effectively communicates the tool's function. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'job_history' or 'print_status_lite', though the single-job focus is evident.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage after obtaining a job_id from 'submit_job', but does not state when not to use it or list alternative tools. Siblings such as 'job_history' (for listing jobs) or 'print_status_lite' (for print status) are not mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context.

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