mcp_job_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool retrieves status/results but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, what happens if the job is incomplete, or the format of the returned data. This leaves significant gaps for a tool handling potentially complex job states.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose with no wasted words. It uses examples ('ETCH, NEXUS, etc.') to add context without verbosity, making it appropriately sized for its function.

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 an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values) but no annotations and low parameter coverage, the description is somewhat complete for a basic status-check tool. However, it lacks details on job lifecycle, error handling, or integration with sibling tools, leaving room for improvement in contextual richness.

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 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description does not add any meaning about the 'job_id' parameter. It fails to explain what a job ID is, how to obtain it, or what happens if it's null (the default). With low schema coverage, the description does not compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 resource ('status/result for long-running MCP jobs'), with examples like 'ETCH, NEXUS, etc.' providing specificity. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'mcp_cancel_job' or 'nexus_list_exploration_sessions', which might also relate to job 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 usage for checking status/results of long-running jobs, suggesting it should be used after initiating such jobs. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'mcp_cancel_job' or other job-related tools, and does not specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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