job_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns progress while running and a result when finished, but omits whether it is read-only, idempotent, rate-limited, or what errors occur for invalid or expired job IDs.

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?

One short sentence with no filler and the key concept front-loaded. The comma-heavy 'and, when finished,' is slightly awkward but not wasteful.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is under-specified. It does not say where to obtain job_id, how to interpret progress/result, or what happens on errors.

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 0%, so the description should explain the sole job_id parameter. It only implies the ID refers to a long-running job and gives no format, source, or example.

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 the resource (a job) and what the tool returns (progress and final result), so the core purpose is clear. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling 'status' tool or explicitly name the action verb, leaving some ambiguity.

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 phrase 'of a long-running job' implies this tool is for monitoring asynchronous jobs, which is an implied usage context. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives like 'status' or 'analyze', and no exclusions.

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