job_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns status and output file paths post-completion, and the verb 'Check' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose behavior on error, missing IDs, or explicitly confirm no side effects, so it is minimally transparent.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Check a submitted H3 job') and immediately follows with the return values. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description covers the core purpose and return values (statuses and output paths), which is sufficient for a straightforward status check. However, it omits error handling details, which prevents a perfect 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?

The schema has 0% coverage, and the description only mentions 'submitted H3 job' which implies prompt_id is the job identifier but does not explicitly define it. For a single parameter, this provides some additional meaning over the schema's bare 'Prompt Id' label, but it does not fully compensate for the lack of schema description.

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 'Check a submitted H3 job' with a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from siblings like job_cancel (cancel) and job_preview (preview) by focusing on status retrieval. It also lists the exact statuses returned.

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 implies usage when you want the status of a submitted H3 job, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. It provides clear context but lacks exclusionary guidance, so it falls short of a 4.

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