vortex_job

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: jobs are in memory and disappear on Vortex restart, and an unfinished job should not be resubmitted. It does not describe return format or error behavior, but the added ephemerality warning is valuable.

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 three tight sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and follows with two relevant operational caveats. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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 simple one-parameter getter, the description plus annotations cover the essential safety profile and the ephemeral nature of jobs. The main remaining gap is that it does not explain how an agent should obtain the jobId, but the schema defines its UUID format and the rest of the usage context is reasonably complete.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description provides no information about the single jobId parameter—where it comes from, whether it must be the UUID from a prior operation call, or how to handle missing jobs. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get the state/result of a Vortex operation job.' That clearly distinguishes it from most siblings, which manage games, mods, downloads, and deployments. It does not explicitly name or compare against an alternative, so it falls short of the 5-level sibling differentiation.

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 the tool is used to check on an operation job, and adds a caution: 'Do not resubmit an unfinished job.' However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it explain how or when to obtain the jobId required for the call.

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