Check a background job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing that the tool is read-only, that jobs are stored only in the server process, and that a restart loses them. It also explains the fallback to recordFile, which is beyond basic schema info. Missing are details like output format or potential error behavior, but the core behavioral traits are covered.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core function is stated first, followed by the read-only nature and the important persistence caveat. Every sentence adds value and the structure is easy to scan.

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 tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, state values, result behavior, and the disk-fallback scenario. It could be slightly more explicit about the return structure, but it sufficiently explains what an agent should expect and when to use recordFile.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by explaining why recordFile exists (server restart loses jobs) and how it relates to disk persistence. This goes beyond merely restating the schema descriptions and helps an agent choose between the two parameters.

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 clearly states the tool checks the state of a background job started with background: true, listing states (running, succeeded, failed), phases, and result. It is specific and understandable, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from related sibling tools such as cs_status aside from the 'background: true' qualifier.

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?

The description provides clear usage context: use this tool to inspect the status of background jobs)Skip. It also gives conditional guidance—after a server restart, use recordFile instead. However, it does not contrast with alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it.

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