remote_job_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does useful work by disclosing the state machine (running/done/failed) and that terminal states add an exit code and tail of the log, but it says nothing about permissions, whether polling is expected, rate limits, or whether the call blocks.

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, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the return contract. Every clause earns its place and nothing is padded.

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 two-parameter polling tool with no output schema, the description covers what matters: the states returned and the terminal-state payload. The only real gap is guidance on repeated polling vs a single check, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 100%, so both parameters (jobId origin and tail default of 40) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or unit detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a concrete verb (查/check) and resource (后台任务/background job), plus the exact payload (status and output). It is clearly distinct from the plural sibling remote_job_list and from the launcher remote_exec_bg, but it never names those siblings explicitly, 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?

Usage is only implied: the jobId schema notes it comes from remote_exec_bg, so an agent can infer this is the follow-up to launching a background job. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or conditional routing to remote_job_list for enumerating jobs.

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