job.status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so 'Risk: read' adds little new information. The description adds minor operational context such as 'maturity: L3' and the remaining requirement checks, but it does not describe what the status query actually reveals or does.

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 single sentence is compact and front-loaded, combining the command identity, risk level, maturity, and policy requirements without filler. It is short almost to a fault, but structurally it wastes no 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not mandatory, but an agent still lacks a clear purpose statement and job-lifecycle context needed to choose this among many job/session/status sibling tools. The safety profile is covered by annotations, yet the tool remains under-specified for correct selection and invocation.

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 description mentions no parameters, and the required jobId has no semantic explanation beyond its regex pattern. With only 60% schema coverage, jobId and _expectedSceneRevision remain weakly documented, and the description does not compensate.

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 only restates the title as `job.status` and labels it with 'Risk: read'; it never explicitly says that the tool returns the current status of a submitted job. The verb/resource relationship is left implied, and no distinction from sibling job tools is given.

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?

No sentence says when to call job_status versus job_submit, job_cancel, job_recover, or job_resume. The only guidance is 'Requirements: Per-request argument checks and session policy still apply,' which speaks to call constraints, not tool selection.

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