job_status

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

Annotations only declare read-only, non-destructive, closed-world safety; the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: blocking semantics of wait_seconds, the three conditions that end the wait, the subtlety that advancing frame counts do not end the wait, and that a log tail is returned on failure. That is exactly the extra context annotations cannot provide.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then the wait contract, then the log behavior, with no redundant restatement of the name or schema. Every sentence carries distinct 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?

The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the only risky behavior (blocking up to wait_seconds). For a three-parameter, read-only tool this is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description has to carry the burden, and it does explain the two non-trivial parameters' semantics (wait_seconds blocking behavior, include_log triggering the log tail). Only job_id format/expectations are left unexplained, which is a minor residual gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') with a precise resource enumeration (durable queued/running/completed/failed/cancelled state, progress, results), which is far beyond a tautology. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling it differs from (list_jobs for enumeration, cancel_job for mutation), which keeps it from a 5.

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 implied through the wait_seconds and include_log conditions, but there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-list_jobs guidance or statement of preconditions (e.g., valid job_id ownership). The description doesn't route the agent to cancel_job or list_jobs as alternatives.

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