media.job.status

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

The word 'read' indicates a non-mutating operation, and 'durable' hints that job state is persisted. However, with no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and does not explain return shape, error behavior, or whether status is pollable or one-shot.

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, front-loaded, and contains no filler or redundancy. Every word ('read', 'durable', 'job', 'status') contributes to the core meaning.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is too thin. It lacks context about where a jobId comes from, what status values may be returned, how to interpret 'durable', and how this relates to sibling tools like media.job.list or media.provider.status.

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 reported as high, so the baseline is 3 even though the description adds no parameter details. The required 'jobId' is fairly self-explanatory, but the description does not clarify how to supply it or that it refers to a previously created job.

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 ('read') and resource ('durable job status'), clearly indicating this tool retrieves job status. It is understandable on its own, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like media.job.list or media.provider.status.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention siblings such as media.job.list, media.job.cancel, or media.provider.status, nor any exclusions or preconditions.

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