get_job_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return format (list of job dicts, same as list_jobs) and error behavior (raises RuntimeError if not found). However, it does not explicitly state read-only nature or any side effects, though the wording implies a safe read.

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?

Three concise sentences: purpose, return format, error handling. No wasted words, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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's simplicity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the return format and error case. It lacks explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, but that is not strictly required for a simple getter.

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, job_id, is self-explanatory ('by ID') and the schema already provides its type and title. With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds minimal extra meaning beyond restating that the ID identifies the job. No format or examples are given.

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 ('Get status') and the resource ('a specific job by ID'), making it distinct from sibling tools like list_jobs which list all jobs. It's specific and immediately understandable.

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 (when you have a job ID and need status), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions when not to use this tool. The comparison with list_jobs is implicit rather than an explicit guideline.

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