ssh_job_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds valuable behavioral detail: reporting the last lines and defining the 'lost' state (no exit code but output still available). This goes beyond the basic hint and helps the agent understand what to expect. No contradiction.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler. The main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the lost-job clarification is a useful addendum. No wasted 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?

The description covers all essential context: it targets detached jobs, reports state and last lines, and flags the lost case with a pointer to an alternative. The output schema exists, so return format needs no explanation. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 100%, meaning both 'profile' and 'id' are fully documented in the input schema. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: reporting the state of a detached job along with its last written lines. This effectively distinguishes it from siblings like ssh_job_output (full output) and ssh_job_list (listing jobs) by focusing on status and a snippet. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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 provides a clear use case: to see where a job got to. It also mentions a specific alternative for lost jobs (ssh_job_output still has output). While it doesn't explicitly exclude other tools or cover all sibling comparisons, the context is informative and actionable.

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