rata_get_job_status

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the disclosure burden alone. It does state that the call returns both a status and a detailed result, which tells the agent something about the response shape, but it says nothing about what happens with an unknown or expired job_id, what status values exist, or whether this is a read-only, side-effect-free call.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and resource in a single compact sentence, with no filler. The bilingual Vietnamese mirror doubles the length, which is a duplication cost, but it is a deliberate localization pattern and neither version wastes words.

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 one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, this covers the core purpose adequately. It is still thin on the return side, since a status-lookup tool with no output schema would benefit from naming the possible statuses or the shape of the 'detailed result'.

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 100% and the single job_id parameter is already documented in the schema, so the description only restates that the job is identified by jobId. No format examples, source of the ID, or validity constraints are added. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: retrieve the status and detailed result of an automation job, keyed by jobId. The RATA prefix and the mention of jobId make the target object unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling ghm_get_job_status that appears to serve the same purpose on another system.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of polling cadence or when to check status versus calling a list/profiles tool, and no exclusion of the near-identical ghm_get_job_status sibling. The intended use can only be inferred from the name and verb.

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