Check a background job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavioral traits: it is read-only, jobs are process-local and lost on restart, and recordFile reads the on-disk copy. That ephemerality/lifetime disclosure is exactly the kind of context structured fields cannot convey. It stops short of auth requirements, blocking behavior, or retention of the disk record.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the safety profile, then the persistence caveat. The first sentence's dash-heavy construction is slightly dense, but every clause carries information and nothing is padding.

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 no output schema, the description correctly compensates by describing the return content (reached phases and the eventual result), and it covers the restart failure mode plus the disk fallback. An agent has enough to call and interpret it, though polling behavior and the listing-all-jobs case are left to the schema.

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 the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the recordFile scenario ('when the server has been restarted since') but largely restates what the schema already says, and it does not mention that omitting jobId lists all jobs — that behavior is documented only in the schema.

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 states a specific resource and scope: the state of a job started with background: true, enumerating the possible states (running, succeeded, failed) and what the response contains (phases, final result). It is clear what the tool returns, but it never differentiates itself from crowded siblings like cs_status, cs_list_flow_runs, or cs_get_flow_run, so an agent must infer from the name alone which status tool to pick.

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: you call this after starting a job with background: true. The one piece of explicit routing advice is for a parameter, not the tool — 'pass recordFile ... instead' when the server has restarted. There is no stated guidance on when to prefer this over cs_status or other run-inspection tools, and no polling cadence guidance.

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