get_job_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Return,' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, nor does it disclose any details about polling behavior, job lifecycle, or how errors are surfaced. This is a significant gap for a status-query tool.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no wasted text. It is appropriately sized for a simple status-query tool.

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?

Although an output schema exists (which covers return values), the description provides minimal context. It does not clarify what 'persistent external-job' means, how this relates to sibling tools like get_job_result, or when in a workflow this status should be checked. Given the large sibling set, this description is not complete enough for correct tool selection.

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 input schema has one required parameter 'jobid' with no description, and the tool description does not mention it at all (0% schema description coverage). The description adds no meaning about what the jobid should be or how it relates to other tools, leaving the agent to guess the expected value.

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 states the verb 'Return' and the resource 'persistent external-job state and progress,' which clearly indicates the tool's function. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like get_job_result or list_jobs, so it lacks explicit differentiation.

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 use this tool compared to alternatives such as get_job_result, list_jobs, or cancel_job. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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