Check background job

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

Annotations already provide read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive flags. The description adds meaningful context beyond those annotations by disclosing observable behavior: it exposes running state and recent stdout/stderr, and supports polling until completion.

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 very compact and front-loaded. Two sentences cover the main action, inspectable state, log tail access, and polling context with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

Given the simple input schema and strong annotations, the description gives enough context about what the tool returns and why it should be used. It could be more explicit about the output shape when listing all jobs vs inspecting a single one, but it is not critically incomplete.

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 must compensate. It only indirectly implies jobId via 'inspect one job' and tailBytes via 'recent stdout/stderr,' but it does not explicitly explain their meaning, relationship, or effect on the returned output.

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 states a concrete action: 'List background jobs or inspect one job with running state and recent stdout/stderr.' It clearly distinguishes itself from lifecycle-related siblings like start_job and stop_job by focusing on observation and status verification.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use the tool: poll until completion and verify resulting files or application state. It does not name exclusions or compare directly with read_file or related observation tools, but the usage intent is clear.

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