photoshop_guard_job_poll

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so: non-blocking behaviour ('returns immediately without waiting'), a side effect ('polling may record a bookkeeping event in the Guard journal'), the semantic trap that process_state is not proof of success, and the not-found error code. That is well beyond what the one-parameter schema conveys.

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 purpose and the primary disambiguation in the first sentence, and each subsequent sentence carries a distinct rule (polling semantics, result inspection, uncertainty, recovery routing, error). It is dense but justified; the only cost is length, which pushes it just below a 5.

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 polling tool with no output schema, it enumerates the returned fields, explains what each state means for the next action, and describes the error case. An agent has enough to loop correctly, avoid unsafe mutations, and route recovery without further discovery.

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 100% and the schema already explains that job_id is an opaque id to reuse unchanged and is not an operation_id or document_id. The description adds only the provenance ('returned by photoshop_guard_cycle_auto'), so baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource ('inspect one asynchronous Guard job') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling that operates on documents/global state. An agent can tell it apart from photoshop_guard_status and photoshop_guard_cycle_auto without reading either schema.

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?

Explicitly names the alternatives and the conditions that select them: photoshop_guard_status for document/global readiness, poll again when starting/running, review_image before submitting an observation, resume/reconcile for uncertain or failed jobs. It even states negative guidance ('never replace running/uncertain work with another mutation').

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