Analysis Status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the two distinct behaviors (single-job progress vs. list-all fallback), which is the most important trait here, but says nothing about whether the call is read-only, whether stale/finished jobs are retained or expired, or how many 'recent' jobs are returned.

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, zero filler, and the default behavior is front-loaded immediately after the purpose. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the single optional parameter's default is covered. However, for a job-status tool in a suite where jobs originate from analyze_binaries, the missing linkage to where job_id comes from is a real gap for correct invocation.

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 does explain the null/omitted case, but says nothing about the format of job_id or, critically, where an agent obtains one (presumably the response of analyze_binaries). That leaves the only real semantic question an agent has unanswered.

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+resource: querying analysis job progress. 'Analysis job progress' is distinct from the binary-inspection siblings (decompile_function, list_strings, etc.), so an agent can tell this is the async-status counterpart to analyze_binaries without opening the schema. It doesn't explicitly name that relationship, which keeps it from 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 second sentence gives a concrete conditional: omit job_id to get all recent jobs. That is useful branch guidance for the one parameter, but the description never says when to call this tool at all (e.g., after starting an analysis) or what to do if no jobs exist. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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