Render Status

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds real value by disclosing the polling cadence ('poll_after_s (wait that long)'), the state enum, and that the response includes diagnostics like check/errors/hint and log tail. That is meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the most important field (state) and then lists the rest. Given there is no output schema, the enumeration of return fields is largely justified rather than padding. It is telegraphic but not wasteful.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return payload, and it does so thoroughly (state, percent, frames, eta, phase, errors, log tail, file written). The remaining gap is the meaning of job_id and the surrounding workflow with render_start/render_cancel, but for a single-parameter read-only tool this is close to complete.

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 parameter job_id is never mentioned in the description, so it does not compensate for the gap. job_id is largely self-explanatory by convention, which keeps this above a 1, but the description adds no semantic detail about what identifier it expects.

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 verb 'Get' plus the resource (render job state) is clear, and the enum running|done|failed|canceled makes the resource unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings render_start/render_cancel, but the name and content make the role obvious. The description leans toward enumerating return values rather than stating purpose outright.

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 explicit statement of when to call this versus alternatives, and no mention of the typical flow (call render_start, then poll render_status). The field 'poll_after_s (wait that long)' only weakly implies a polling loop. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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