Job Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns by describing check/wait/list behavior with no side effects. It additionally discloses the blocking behavior of wait_seconds and the internal wait cap, providing transparency beyond the annotations.

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 mostly concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The final sentence about a five-minute scan finishing into an unreadable job is somewhat redundant with the earlier explanation, but it reinforces the importance without excessive verbosity.

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 gives a complete picture of when and how to use the tool, including the long-running job mechanism and wait behavior. The missing explanation of the status parameter is a notable gap, but overall the tool usage is sufficiently contextualized.

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 provides no parameter descriptions, and the description explains job_id (omit to list jobs) and wait_seconds (blocks up to 300s). However, the status parameter is never mentioned, leaving its meaning and filtering behavior ambiguous. Partial coverage of three optional parameters.

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 purpose: 'Check, wait on, or list long-running scans.' It explicitly identifies the relevant scan tools (nuclei_scan, bbot_scan, osmedeus_flow) and explains that this is the mechanism for collecting results from jobs that outlast a single call, distinguishing it effectively from sibling job-related tools.

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 concrete usage guidance: omitting job_id lists jobs, and wait_seconds blocks up to 300s. It also explains the critical scenario where this tool is needed ('Without it a scan longer than five minutes finishes into a job nothing can read'). It does not explicitly mention when to prefer job_list/job_fetch, but the guidance is sufficient.

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