danceflow_job_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description does add one piece of behavioral context beyond them by naming two status values (needs_review, unknown_after_restart), but it does not explain what those states mean or what an agent should do on them.

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 the action front-loaded and no filler. The trailing clause is terse to the point of being cryptic, but nothing is wasted.

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 no explanation, and annotations cover the read-only profile. However, the dangling reference to needs_review and unknown_after_restart without explanation, plus the undocumented job_id origin, leaves the definition thinner than a job-status tool should be.

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% for the single required job_id, and the description does not say what form the ID takes or where it is obtained (e.g., from danceflow_list_jobs). The one parameter an agent must supply is entirely undocumented.

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?

"Inspect an adapter job" gives a verb and a resource, and the tool name implies status retrieval, but the description never says it returns the job's current state or what an 'adapter job' is. It also does not distinguish it from siblings such as danceflow_job_logs or danceflow_list_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 statement of when to call this versus danceflow_job_logs (logs of a job) or danceflow_list_jobs (enumerating jobs). An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the single-job status lookup.

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