render_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral criterion — a render is done when its file stops growing — which is not in any structured field. It omits, however, whether omitting job_id returns all jobs or errors.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, with the status vocabulary up front. It is terse almost to a fault, 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 not be explained, and the completion heuristic is covered. The unresolved optional-job_id behavior leaves an agent unsure whether this is a single-job query or a listing tool.

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 single parameter job_id is never mentioned in the description, so the agent gets no guidance on what it identifies or what omitting it does. This is a real gap the description should have closed.

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?

Names the resource (render) and its status states (en_cours, termine, expire), so the agent knows this reports render progress rather than triggering one. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling wait_for_render, which covers adjacent ground.

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 indication of when to poll this versus using wait_for_render or render_image, and no mention of what happens when job_id is omitted (list all renders vs. a single job). Usage must be inferred entirely.

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