get_job_status

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose the asynchronous job model, the terminal state set, and that the result payload is attached on completion, but it omits retry/backoff expectations, behavior for unknown job_ids, and whether the call blocks or returns immediately.

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 one-line purpose followed by compact Args/Returns sections. Every line adds information an agent needs; there is no filler.

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 single-parameter polling tool with an output schema present, this is close to complete: origin of the ID, status vocabulary, and result availability are all covered. Only error-path behavior for a stale or invalid job_id is missing.

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 schema gives no hint about what job_id means. The description compensates well by naming the three sibling tools whose return values supply it, which is the key semantic an agent needs.

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 (poll), a specific resource (a background Sentron scan job), and the terminal condition (until it completes). It is trivially distinguishable from the three siblings, which launch jobs rather than report on them.

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 makes the usage path explicit: this tool is called with a job_id returned by audit_repo_health, scan_licenses_and_vulns, or generate_sbom, and is polled until completion. It stops short of saying whether to back off between polls or what to do on an invalid/expired job_id.

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