get_job_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet it only says what fields are returned. It does not disclose that this is a non-mutating read, how it behaves for an unknown or expired job_id, or whether status reflects completed/cancelled states.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly the source of the missing guidance rather than deliberate tightness.

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 read with no output schema, the description does convey the key return contents (status and artifact counts). It still leaves the parameter's provenance and the read-only nature unexplained, which is a real but modest gap.

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% and the single required parameter job_id is undocumented in the schema. The description never mentions job_id, so it fails to compensate by explaining its format or that it likely comes from start_scan_job or list_jobs.

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 (get) and resource (job status) plus what is returned (artifact counts), so the agent knows this is a single-job status read rather than a list. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like list_jobs or get_manifest, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 on when to use this versus list_jobs, get_manifest, or get_events, and no mention of polling, terminal states, or prerequisites such as where job_id comes from. Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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