job_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Poll' clearly indicates a read-only operation, and 'crawl or LLM job' and 'opaque task ID' add useful context about the input. However, it does not disclose details such as whether the tool blocks, how errors are reported, or any rate limits, leaving moderate transparency.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads the core action and resource, making it efficient and easy to scan.

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 simple polling tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and input types. It lacks an explicit link to the submit tools, but the context is clear enough for a low-complexity operation. A slightly more complete description would mention that the task ID originates from a submit call.

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 must compensate. It clarifies that task_id is 'opaque' and that job_type is either crawl or LLM, aligning with the schema's enum. However, it gives no guidance on how to obtain the task_id (e.g., from a submit call) or the effect of the job_type default, so semantics are only partially explained.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Poll a Crawl4AI crawl or LLM job by its opaque task ID.' It identifies the specific verb (poll), resource (crawl or LLM job), and identifier (task ID), which distinguishes it from sibling submit and artifact-info tools.

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?

The description implies usage after submitting a job with crawl_job_submit or llm_job_submit, and it mentions both job types. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond having a task ID.

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