get_job_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile of checking status is covered. The description adds only the background-job framing; it does not disclose the status lifecycle (terminal vs. in-progress states), whether expired job ids error out, or any timeout/retention behavior — meaningful gaps for a polling tool.

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?

A single efficient sentence with no filler and the resource front-loaded. It is appropriately sized, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing polling and id-provenance guidance rather than because the tool is simple.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the read-only annotations cover safety. However, for an async-status tool the crucial missing piece is how the agent obtains job_status_id and how to interpret/poll for completion, leaving the definition incomplete for correct use.

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% and the description says nothing about job_status_id — where it comes from (presumably returned by an async operation like copy_project), its format, or what happens with an invalid/expired id. The single required parameter is left entirely unexplained by both schema and 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the current status of a background job') and adds a concrete example ('such as project copy') that anchors the concept. It does not need to distinguish itself from siblings because none of them cover job status, though it also does not name which tools produce such jobs.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to call this tool versus alternatives, how often to poll, or when to stop polling. The only implicit cue is the 'background job such as project copy' example, which hints it follows an async operation like copy_project but never states that relationship.

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