artwork_job_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add that the state is persistent and includes progress, which hints at retrieval from durable storage rather than a live session. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it blocks, what permissions are needed, or how fresh the state is.

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 is appropriately sized and immediately communicates the tool's core action. No sentence is wasted or redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the input parameter has no documentation and the description provides no usage guidance. With no annotations and many sibling job-lifecycle tools, the definition is too thin to fully guide correct invocation. It omits basic context such as whether the job_id is required and how status relates to other job operations.

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% and the single required parameter job_id is not mentioned in the description. The description does not clarify the expected identifier format, where it comes from, or any constraints. Because the schema provides no parameter documentation, the description should compensate but does not.

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 a specific verb and resource: it returns the state and progress of an artwork job. This distinguishes it from lifecycle siblings like artwork_job_create, run, pause, or cancel. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from artwork_job_list or artwork_followup, which also relate to job tracking.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this tool versus alternatives such as artwork_job_list or artwork_followup. The only implied usage is querying a job's status, but no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided. With many related sibling tools, this omission leaves the agent to infer usage.

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