Get Agent Job Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds modest context with 'authorized' and 'durable', implying access requirements and persistence, but does not explain behavioral details like consistency, blocking, or failure modes.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler and it front-loads the action. It loses a point for the jargon-heavy phrase 'status projection', which could be clearer.

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?

With an output schema, strong safety annotations, and only two required parameters, the tool is reasonably simple. However, the description provides no rationale for selecting this tool over status/result siblings and only vaguely hints at authorization, leaving the context minimally 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?

Schema description coverage is only 50%; job_id is undocumented and the description does not explain either parameter. The workspace object has a schema-level description, but the description text adds no parameter semantics, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Return') and identifies a singular resource ('one authorized durable job status projection'), making the core function clear. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing 'one' status versus agent_list or agent_result, though the term 'projection' is somewhat vague.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over sibling tools such as agent_list, agent_result, or agent_cancel. The description only states what it returns and leaves all usage-context decisions to the agent.

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