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 implies a read-only operation through the verb 'get', but it does not explicitly state safety, nor does it disclose any potential limitations such as pagination, ordering, or the exact fields returned. The description is adequate for a simple read tool but lacks explicit behavioral context.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then lists the modes. It contains zero filler and earns every word.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, which covers return-value details. The description adequately communicates the two main usage modes. However, the ambiguity about parameter combinations and the scope of 'all jobs' leaves a small completeness gap, preventing a 5.

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 schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It mentions job_id and case context, indicating that job_id targets a specific job and case_name filters jobs by case. However, it does not explain the precedence when both are provided, nor does it clarify the default 'all jobs' behavior in detail. Some meaning is added, but the full parameter logic is not spelled out.

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 tool's function: retrieving job status by job_id, or listing jobs for a case/all jobs. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the focus on 'status' distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_logs or stop_job.

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 contexts (by job, by case, all jobs) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions. The purpose is self-evident, but there is no direct guidance about choosing this vs. other job-related tools.

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