get_asset_job_status

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a read operation and a negative output trait, but does not mention side effects, required permissions, polling behavior, or what the response contains.

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 one short sentence with no filler, and the key limitation is front-loaded. However, it is so terse that it sacrifices useful 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?

For a single-parameter status read with no output schema or annotations, the description is too sparse to fully equip an agent: it omits return contents, polling context, and error expectations. The name and sibling list hint at the purpose, but the description itself does not close the 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%, so the description must explain job_id. It only implies that the job is an 'asynchronous asset job' and gives no format, provenance, or relationship to the output of start_asset_job.

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 specific verb ('Read') and resource ('one asynchronous asset job'), and the qualifier 'without returning raw pixels' distinguishes it from pixel-returning tools. It does not explicitly say 'status', though the tool name does, so it is clear but not maximally precise.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus start_asset_job, cancel_asset_job, or batch_asset_job. The description only states what it does, not the conditions under which it should be chosen.

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