job_status

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

The description mentions the tool rejects stale job IDs, which is a behavioral detail. However, without annotations, it does not disclose other potential side effects, error behaviors, or prerequisites beyond that single rejection case.

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—two short clauses—with no redundant information. It is efficiently structured and every word contributes to the 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?

The description does not explain what 'progress' means, what the return value looks like, or how the 'revision' should be formatted. Given the lack of an output schema, these missing details make it incomplete for an agent to confidently use the 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 only parameter 'revision' is a string, but its meaning, format, and relationship to 'job IDs' are entirely unexplained. Since the schema provides no description, the tool description must clarify it 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 the action (read progress) and the resource (a specific revision), and the mention of rejecting stale job IDs adds specificity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'lab_status' tool, so it is not a perfect 5.

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 explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over similar alternatives (e.g., lab_status) or what conditions warrant using it. The intended usage is only implicit from the verb 'read'.

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