job_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a non-destructive read, but says nothing about polling cadence, terminal states, whether progress is monotonic, or what happens when the job_id is unknown or expired.

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?

One short sentence with no filler and the key concept front-loaded. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb-led sentence, which slightly weakens the phrasing but the size is appropriate.

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 job-query tool with no output schema, no annotations, and an undocumented required identifier, the definition is too thin. An agent cannot tell how to obtain a valid job_id or what the response contains, so it is not complete enough to call confidently.

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 adds nothing about job_id: its format, whether it is the same identifier returned by job submission or jobs_list, or whether it must be currently running. With the single required parameter undocumented in both places, the description fails to compensate.

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 names a clear resource (background job) and the specific information returned (status and progress), so an agent knows this is a read of job state rather than a listing or result fetch. However it offers no differentiation from close siblings like job_result, job_cancel, or jobs_list, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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 when-to-use guidance, no statement of when this beats job_result or jobs_list, and no prerequisites. The only implied context is that a job must already exist.

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